2016 FayetteCountyDiagnosticReviewReportFinal

Report of the
Diagnostic Review Team

for
Fayette County
1126 Russell Cave Rd
Lexington
KY 40505
US
Emmanuel Caulk
Superintendent
Date: March 13, 2016 - March 16, 2016
Document Generated On April 7, 2016
Kentucky Department of Education
Fayette County
Copyright (c) 2016 by Advance Education, Inc. AdvancED grants to the Institution, which is the subject of the Diagnostic Review Team Report, and its
designees and stakeholders a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license and release to reproduce, reprint, and distribute this report in
accordance with and as protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States of America and all foreign countries. All other rights not expressly
conveyed are reserved by AdvancED.
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016reserved unless otherwise granted by written agreement.
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 2
Fayette County
Table of Contents
Introduction
Results
Teaching and Learning Impact
Standard 3 - Teaching and Assessing for Learning
Standard 5 - Using Results for Continuous Improvement
Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot)
eleot Data Summary
Findings
Leadership Capacity
Standard 1 - Purpose and Direction
Standard 2 - Governance and Leadership
Findings
Resource Utilization
Standard 4 - Resources and Support Systems
Conclusion
Addenda
Team Roster
About AdvancED
References
Attachments
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
4
8
8
9
10
11
14
17
26
27
27
27
32
32
34
38
38
41
42
43
Page 3
Fayette County
Introduction
The Diagnostic Review is carried out by a team of highly qualified evaluators who examine the institution's
adherence and commitment to the research-aligned AdvancED Standards. The Diagnostic Review Process is
designed to energize and equip the leadership and stakeholders of an institution to achieve higher levels of
performance and address those areas that may be hindering efforts to reach desired performance levels. The
Diagnostic Review is a rigorous process that includes examination of evidence and relevant performance data,
interviews with stakeholders, and observations of instruction, learning and operations.
The Diagnostic Review Team used the AdvancED Standards and related criteria to guide its evaluation,
looking not only for adherence to standards, but also for how the institution functioned as a whole and
embodied the practices and characteristics of quality. Using the evidence at their disposal, the Diagnostic
Review Team arrived at a set of findings contained in this report.
Standards help to delineate what matters. They provide a common language through which an education
community can engage in conversations about educational improvement, institution effectiveness, and
achievement. They serve as a foundation for planning and implementing improvement strategies and activities
and for measuring success. AdvancED Standards were developed by a committee comprised of talented
educators and leaders from the fields of practice, research and policy who applied professional wisdom, deep
knowledge of effective practice, and the best available research to craft a set of robust standards that define
institutional quality and guide continuous improvement. Prior to implementation, an internationally recognized
panel of experts in testing and measurement, teacher quality and education research reviewed the standards
and provided feedback, guidance and endorsement.
The AdvancED Diagnostic Review Team uses AdvancED Standards, associated Indicators and criteria related
to student performance and stakeholder engagement to guide its evaluation. The Standards, Indicators and
related criteria are evaluated using Indicator-specific performance levels. The Team rates each Indicator and
criterion on a scale of 1 to 4. The final scores assigned to the Indicators and criteria represent the average of
the Diagnostic Review Team members' individual ratings.
Use of Diagnostic Tools

A key to examining the institution is the design and use of diagnostic tools that reveal the effectiveness with
which an institution creates conditions and implements processes and practices that impact student
performance and success. In preparation for the Diagnostic Review, the institution conducted a Self
Assessment using the AdvancED Standards and provided evidence to support its conclusions vis a vis
organizational effectiveness in ensuring acceptable and improving levels of student performance.
-
An indicator-based tool that connects the specific elements of the criteria to evidence gathered by the
team;
a student performance analytic that examines the quality of assessment instruments used by the
institution, the integrity of the administration of the assessment to students, the quality of the learning
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 4
Fayette County
results including the impact of instruction on student learning at all levels of performance, and the
equity of learning that examines the results of student learning across all demographics;
a stakeholder engagement instrument that examines the fidelity of administration and results of
perception surveys seeking the perspective of students, parents, and teachers;
a state-of-the-art, learner-centric observation instrument, the Effective Learning Environments
Observation Tool (eleot) that quantifies students' engagement, attitudes and dispositions organized
in 7 environments: Equitable Learning, High Expectations, Supportive Learning, Active Learning,
Progress Monitoring and Feedback, Well-Managed Learning, and Digital Learning. All evaluators must
be trained, reach acceptable levels of inter-rater reliability, and certified to use this research-based and
validated instrument.
The Diagnostic Review Team's findings and critical observations are shared in this report through the Indicator
ratings, identification of Powerful Practices and Improvement Priorities.
Powerful Practices
A key to continuous improvement is the institution's knowledge of its most effective and impactful practices.
Such practices, yielding a performance level of 4, serve as critical leverage points necessary to guide, support
and ensure continuous improvement. The Diagnostic Review process is committed to identifying conditions,
processes and practices that are having the most significant impact on student performance and institutional
effectiveness. The Diagnostic Review Team has captured and defined Powerful Practices that it identified as
essential to the institution's effort to continue its journey of improvement.
Improvement Priorities
The Diagnostic Review Team reviewed, analyzed and deliberated over significant bodies of evidence provided
by the institution and gathered by the team during the process. For those instances in which this analysis
yielded a Level 1 Indicator rating, an Improvement Priority has been identified by the team to guide
improvement efforts. Improvement Priorities are supported by extensive explanation and rationale to give
school leaders and stakeholders a clear understanding of the conditions, practices, policies, etc., revealed
through the Diagnostic Review process. Improvement Priorities are intended to be incorporated into the
institution's improvement plan.
The Review
Fayette County Public Schools hosted a Diagnostic Review on March 13-16, 2016. The on-site review involved
a nine member Team who provided their knowledge, skills and expertise for carrying out the Diagnostic
Review process and developing this written report of their findings. This was the district's third Diagnostic
Review in three years. The first was conducted February, 2014 and the second Diagnostic Review was
conducted March 15, 2015.
Concurrent to the Diagnostic Review, the Kentucky Department of Education conducted an "Internal Review"
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 5
Fayette County
at Bryan Station High School (a one-day visit to focus on teaching and assessing for learning).
During the Diagnostic Review Team meeting on Sunday, March 13, 2016, the superintendent and leadership
staff presented a district overview. The Diagnostic Review Team conducted interviews with key district staff
and reviewed documents and artifacts supplied as evidence by the district on Monday, March 14, 2016. In
conjunction with a team from the Kentucky Department of Education, the Diagnostic Review Team conducted
classroom observations at Bryan Station High School on Tuesday, March 15, 2016. In the afternoon the Team
worked at the central office and conducted additional district staff interviews and completed a review of all
evidence provided by the district. In addition, the Team met Monday and Tuesday evenings to review data
from interviews, observations, and document reviews and to identify and write Improvement Priorities. The
Team convened at the district office on Wednesday, March 16, 2016, to compile findings and prepare the final
report.
The Diagnostic Review Team expresses its appreciation to the staff and stakeholders of Fayette County Public
Schools for their commitment to the Diagnostic Review intent and process. District staff were well prepared
and responded graciously and promptly to the Team's requests for information. The Team was warmly
welcomed throughout the on-site review.
Prior to the start of the Diagnostic Review, the Team engaged in a conference call and various
communications through emails to complete the initial intensive study, review and analysis of supporting
documents provided by the district. The Lead Evaluator conducted conference calls with the key leaders of the
institution. District leaders planned and conducted the Internal Review with candor and attention to detail.
District leaders provided evidence to support Indicator ratings and the narrative summary. The comprehensive
Internal Review engaged a range of stakeholder groups and was completed and submitted for review by the
Diagnostic Review Team in a timely manner.
A total of 59 stakeholders were interviewed, and 46 classrooms were observed during the Diagnostic Review.
Throughout the Diagnostic Review, district and school leaders and staff members were candid and thoughtful
in their reflections and comments in discussing their continuous improvement progress in the Fayette County
Public Schools.
Stakeholders were interviewed by members of the Diagnostic Review Team to gain their perspectives on
topics relevant to the institution's effectiveness and student performance. The feedback gained through the
stakeholder interviews was considered with other evidences and data to support the findings of the Diagnostic
Review. The following chart depicts the numbers of persons interviewed representative of various stakeholder
groups.
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 6
Stakeholder Interviewed
Fayette County
Number
Superintendents
Board Members
Administrators
36
Parents/Community/Business Leaders
18
Total
59
Using the evidence at their disposal, the AdvancED Diagnostic Review Team arrived at a set of findings
contained in this report. The report is presented in three sections: Results, Conclusion and Addenda.
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 7
Fayette County
Results
Teaching and Learning Impact
The impact of teaching and learning on student achievement is the primary expectation of every institution.
The relationship between teacher and learner must be productive and effective for student success. The
impact of teaching and learning includes an analysis of student performance results, instructional quality,
learner and family engagement, support services for student learning, curriculum quality and efficacy, and
college and career readiness data. These are all key indicators of an institution's impact on teaching and
learning.
A high-quality and effective educational system has services, practices, and curriculum that ensure teacher
effectiveness. Research has shown that an effective teacher is a key factor for learners to achieve their highest
potential and be prepared for a successful future. The positive influence an effective educator has on learning
is a combination of "student motivation, parental involvement" and the "quality of leadership" (Ding & Sherman,
2006). Research also suggests that quality educators must have a variety of quantifiable and intangible
characteristics that include strong communication skills, knowledge of content, and knowledge of how to teach
the content. The institution's curriculum and instructional program should develop learners' skills that lead them
to think about the world in complex ways (Conley, 2007) and prepare them to have knowledge that extends
beyond the academic areas. In order to achieve these goals, teachers must have pedagogical skills as well as
content knowledge (Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voxx, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U.,
Krauss, S., Nuebrand, M., & Tsai, Y., 2010). The acquisition and refinement of teachers' pedagogical skills
occur most effectively through collaboration and professional development. These are a "necessary approach
to improving teacher quality" (Colbert, J., Brown, R., Choi, S., & Thomas, S., 2008). According to Marks, Louis,
and Printy (2002), staff members who engage in "active organizational learning also have higher achieving
students in contrast to those that do not." Likewise, a study conducted by Horng, Klasik, and Loeb (2010),
concluded that leadership in effective institutions "supports teachers by creating collaborative work
environments." Institutional leaders have a responsibility to provide experiences, resources, and time for
educators to engage in meaningful professional learning that promotes student learning and educator quality.
AdvancED has found that a successful institution implements a curriculum based on clear and measurable
expectations for student learning. The curriculum provides opportunities for all students to acquire requisite
knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Teachers use proven instructional practices that actively engage students in
the learning process. Teachers provide opportunities for students to apply their knowledge and skills to real
world situations. Teachers give students feedback to improve their performance.
Institutions with strong improvement processes move beyond anxiety about the current reality and focus on
priorities and initiatives for the future. Using results, i.e., data and other information, to guide continuous
improvement is key to an institution's success. A study conducted by Datnow, Park, and Wohlstetter (2007)
from the Center on Educational Governance at the University of Southern California indicated that data can
shed light on existing areas of strength and weakness and also guide improvement strategies in a systematic
and strategic manner (Dembosky, J., Pane, J., Barney, H., & Christina, R., 2005). The study also identified six
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 8
Fayette County
key strategies that performance-driven systems use: (1) building a foundation for data-driven decision making,
(2) establishing a culture of data use and continuous improvement, (3) investing in an information management
system, (4) selecting the right data, (5) building institutional capacity for data-driven decision making, and (6)
analyzing and acting on data to improve performance. Other research studies, though largely without
comparison groups, suggested that data-driven decision-making has the potential to increase student
performance (Alwin, 2002; Doyle, 2003; Lafee, 2002; McIntire, 2002).
Through ongoing evaluation of educational institutions, AdvancED has found that a successful institution uses
a comprehensive assessment system based on clearly defined performance measures. The system is used to
assess student performance on expectations for student learning, evaluate the effectiveness of curriculum and
instruction, and determine strategies to improve student performance. The institution implements a
collaborative and ongoing process for improvement that aligns the functions of the school with the expectations
for student learning. Improvement efforts are sustained, and the institution demonstrates progress in improving
student performance and institution effectiveness.
Standard 3 - Teaching and Assessing for Learning

The system's curriculum, instructional design, and assessment practices guide and ensure teacher
effectiveness and student learning across all grades and courses.
Indicator
Description
Review Team
Score
3.1
The system's curriculum provides equitable and challenging learning

experiences that ensure all students have sufficient opportunities to develop
learning, thinking, and life skills that lead to success at the next level.
1.22
3.2
Curriculum, instruction, and assessment throughout the system are monitored

and adjusted systematically in response to data from multiple assessments of
student learning and an examination of professional practice.
1.33
3.3
Teachers throughout the district engage students in their learning through

instructional strategies that ensure achievement of learning expectations.
1.11
3.4
System and school leaders monitor and support the improvement of instructional
practices of teachers to ensure student success.
1.00
3.5
The system operates as a collaborative learning organization through structures

that support improved instruction and student learning at all levels.
1.22
3.6
Teachers implement the system's instructional process in support of student

learning.
1.11
3.7
Mentoring, coaching, and induction programs support instructional improvement

consistent with the system's values and beliefs about teaching and learning.
1.22
3.8
The system and all of its schools engage families in meaningful ways in their
children's education and keep them informed of their children's learning
progress.
1.78
3.9
The system designs and evaluates structures in all schools whereby each
student is well known by at least one adult advocate in the student's school who
supports that student's educational experience.
1.44
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 9
Indicator
Fayette County
Description
Review Team
Score
3.10
Grading and reporting are based on clearly defined criteria that represent the
attainment of content knowledge and skills and are consistent across grade
levels and courses.
1.11
3.11
All staff members participate in a continuous program of professional learning.
1.11
3.12
The system and its schools provide and coordinate learning support services to
meet the unique learning needs of students.
1.22
Standard 5 - Using Results for Continuous Improvement

The system implements a comprehensive assessment system that generates a range of data about student
learning and system effectiveness and uses the results to guide continuous improvement.
Indicator
Description
Review Team
Score
5.1
The system establishes and maintains a clearly defined and comprehensive

student assessment system.
1.11
5.2
Professional and support staff continuously collect, analyze and apply learning
from a range of data sources, including comparison and trend data about student
learning, instruction, program evaluation, and organizational conditions that
support learning.
1.11
5.3
Throughout the system professional and support staff are trained in the
interpretation and use of data.
1.22
5.4
The school system engages in a continuous process to determine verifiable

improvement in student learning, including readiness for and success at the next
level.
1.00
5.5
System and school leaders monitor and communicate comprehensive

information about student learning, school performance, and the achievement of
system and school improvement goals to stakeholders.
1.11
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 10
Fayette County
Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot)

Every learner should have access to an effective learning environment in which she/he has multiple
opportunities to be successful. The Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot) measures the
extent to which learners are in an environment that is equitable, supportive, and well-managed. An
environment where high expectations are the norm and active learning takes place. It measures whether
learners' progress is monitored and feedback is provided and the extent to which technology is leveraged for
learning.
Observations of classrooms or other learning venues are conducted for a minimum of 20 minutes per
observation. Every member of the Diagnostic Review Team is required to be trained and pass a certification
exam that establishes inter-rater reliability. Team members conduct multiple observations during the review
process and provide ratings on 30 items based on a four-point scale (4=very evident; 3=evident; 2=somewhat
evident; and 1=not observed). The following provides the aggregate average score across multiple
observations for each of the seven learning environments included in eleot.
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.76
1.5
2.11
1.90
1.75
1.75
1.64
1.41
1.0
0.5
ng
rni
ing
ea
lL
Le
G.
Dig
ita
ed
ag
an
ll-M
We
F.
res
s
F e Mon
ed
b a itorin
ck
g
og
Pr
E.
arn
an
ng
rni
tiv
Ac
D.
ive
ort
pp
C.
Su
eL
Le
ec
xp
hE
Hig
B.
ea
arn
ion
tat
arn
Le
le
ab
uit
Eq
A.
ing
0.0
ing
Performance Levels
eleot Results
Review
The Diagnostic Review Team, along with the Kentucky Department of Education Team, conducted 46
classroom observations in all available core content classes using the Effective Learning Environments
Observation Tool (eleot) at Bryan Station High School. The overall ratings ranged from 1.41 to 2.11 on a
four-point scale. The highest rated was the Well-Managed Learning Environment and the lowest rated was the
Digital Learning Environment. The Well-Management Learning Environment ratings from the Team aligned
with the district-reported progress designed to improve behavior at Bryan Station High School.
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 11
Fayette County
The lowest rated Learning Environments strongly correlated with the curriculum, instructional practices and the
effective use of data to modify classroom instruction. Classroom observation data correlates with and supports
the need for the four Improvement Priorities in the Teaching and Learning section of this report.
The Equitable Learning Environment received an overall rating of 1.76 on a four-point scale. It was
evident/very evident in only 48 percent of the classrooms, for example, that students had "equal access to
classroom discussions, activities, resources, technology and support" (A2). It also was evident/very evident in
37 percent of the classrooms that students knew that "rules, consequences were fair, clear, and consistently
applied" (A3), suggesting that in over 60 percent of the classrooms observers could not confirm this important
condition. While it was apparent that staff members had worked to develop an atmosphere of positive student
behavior, classroom observation data revealed the need to continue these efforts.
In 13 percent of the classrooms it was evident/very evident that students had "differentiated learning
opportunities and activities that met his/her needs" (A1). Most of the classroom instruction tended to be
teacher-centric and was a "one size fits all" approach. Differentiated instruction is a powerful strategy that can
help teachers address the academic needs of students. The need to increase differentiated learning
opportunities for students was addressed in three of the Improvement Priorities related to classroom
instruction.
The High Expectations Learning Environment received an overall rating of 1.75 on a four-point scale. It was
evident/very evident in 22 percent of the classrooms that students were "tasked with activities and learning that
were challenging but attainable" (B2). It was evident/very evident in 24 percent of the classrooms that students
"worked to meet the high expectations established by the teacher" (B1).
It was evident/very evident in only two percent of the classrooms that students were provided "exemplars of
high quality work" (B3). This proves to be a major leverage opportunity for the staff at the school. All five items
in the High Expectations Learning Environment directly relate to AdvancED Standards Indicators 3.1 - 3.6.
These observation data support the Improvement Priorities in this report that specifically addressed Indicators
3.2, 3.3., 3.4 and 3.6.
The Supportive Learning Environment received an overall rating of 1.90 on a four-point scale. It was
evident/very evident in 35 percent of the classrooms that students "demonstrated or expressed that learning
experiences were positive" (C1). It was evident/very evident in only 13 percent of the classrooms that students
"took risks in learning without fear of negative feedback" (C3). Additionally, instances of students being
"provided additional/alternative instruction and feedback at the appropriate level of challenge for her/his needs"
(C5) was evident/very evident in only two percent of the classrooms, which supports the findings that limited
instances of differentiated learning activities were observed. The ratings also underscored the need for
classroom supervision and monitoring of classroom instructional strategies to assist teachers in developing the
effective use of these learning environments.
The Active Learning Environment received an overall rating of 1.75 on a four-point scale. It was evident/very
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 12
Fayette County
evident in 15 percent of the classrooms that the students were "actively engaged in the learning activities"
(D3). It was evident/very evident in 13 percent of the classrooms that students had "several opportunities to
engage in discussions with the teacher and other students" (D1). These ratings matched anecdotal rater
comments that most of the instruction was teacher-led and that few instances of active student participation
occurred.
The Progress Monitoring and Feedback Learning Environment received an overall rating of 1.64 on a fourpoint scale. It was evident/very evident in 15 percent of the classrooms that students had "opportunities to
revise/improve work based on feedback" (E5). It was evident/very evident in 11 percent of the classrooms that
students were "asked and/or quizzed about individual progress/learning" (E1). These low ratings illustrate the
lack of consistent and frequent formative assessment practices across classrooms. These findings correlated
with AdvancED Standard Indicators 5.1 - 5.3, which address the components of a comprehensive assessment
system and with Standard Indicator 3.2 that was an Improvement Priority carried forward from the prior
Diagnostic Review in March, 2015.
The Well-Managed Learning Environment received an overall rating of 2.11 on a four-point scale. It was
evident/very evident in 54 percent of the classrooms that students spoke and interacted "respectfully with
teachers and peers" (F1). Additionally, instances of students following classroom rules (F2) were evident/very
evident in 41 percent of the classrooms.
It was evident/very evident in just seven percent of the classrooms that the students "collaborated with other
students during student-centered activities" (F4), suggesting a need to infuse more student participation and
student-centered learning activities into daily instruction.
The Digital Learning Environment received an overall rating of 1.41 on a four-point scale. It was evident/very
evident in 20 percent of the classrooms that the students used "digital tools/technology to gather, evaluate
and/or use information for learning" (G1). It was evident/very evident in nine percent of the classrooms that the
students used "digital tools/technology to communicate and work collaboratively for learning" (G3). Anecdotal
comments by observers highlighted the low frequency of students using technology for learning.
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 13
Fayette County
eleot Data Summary
Item
Average
Description
Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Not
Observed
%
Very
Evident
A. Equitable Learning
1.
1.43
Has differentiated learning opportunities

and activities that meet her/his needs
2.17%
10.87%
15.22%
71.74%
2.
2.37
Has equal access to classroom

discussions, activities, resources,
technology, and support
2.17%
45.65%
39.13%
13.04%
3.
2.11
Knows that rules and consequences are

fair, clear, and consistently applied
4.35%
32.61%
32.61%
30.43%
4.
1.13
Has ongoing opportunities to learn

about their own and other's
backgrounds/cultures/differences
0.00%
2.17%
8.70%
89.13%
Overall rating on a 4 point scale: 1.76
Item
Average
Description
Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Not
Observed
%
Very
Evident
B. High Expectations
1.
2.02
Knows and strives to meet the high

expectations established by the teacher
4.35%
19.57%
50.00%
26.09%
2.
2.04
Is tasked with activities and learning that

are challenging but attainable
6.52%
15.22%
54.35%
23.91%
3.
1.20
Is provided exemplars of high quality

work
0.00%
2.17%
15.22%
82.61%
4.
1.83
Is engaged in rigorous coursework,

discussions, and/or tasks
4.35%
8.70%
52.17%
34.78%
5.
1.65
Is asked and responds to questions that

require higher order thinking (e.g.,
applying, evaluating, synthesizing)
2.17%
8.70%
41.30%
47.83%
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 14
Fayette County
Item
Average
Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Not
Observed
%
Very
Evident
C. Supportive Learning
1.
2.15
Demonstrates or expresses that

learning experiences are positive
4.35%
30.43%
41.30%
23.91%
2.
2.09
Demonstrates positive attitude about the

classroom and learning
4.35%
26.09%
43.48%
26.09%
3.
1.72
Takes risks in learning (without fear of

negative feedback)
0.00%
13.04%
45.65%
41.30%
4.
2.09
Is provided support and assistance to

understand content and accomplish
tasks
4.35%
15.22%
65.22%
15.22%
5.
1.46
Is provided additional/alternative
instruction and feedback at the
appropriate level of challenge for her/his
needs
2.17%
0.00%
39.13%
58.70%
Description
Item
Average
Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Not
Observed
%
Very
Evident
D. Active Learning
1.
1.78
Has several opportunities to engage in

discussions with teacher and other
students
2.17%
10.87%
50.00%
36.96%
2.
1.59
Makes connections from content to reallife experiences
2.17%
13.04%
26.09%
58.70%
3.
1.87
Is actively engaged in the learning

activities
2.17%
13.04%
54.35%
30.43%
Description
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 15
Fayette County
Item
Average
Description
Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Not
Observed
%
Very
Evident
E. Progress Monitoring and Feedback
1.
1.61
Is asked and/or quizzed about individual

progress/learning
2.17%
8.70%
36.96%
52.17%
2.
1.74
Responds to teacher feedback to

improve understanding
0.00%
8.70%
56.52%
34.78%
3.
1.80
Demonstrates or verbalizes
understanding of the lesson/content
0.00%
4.35%
71.74%
23.91%
4.
1.41
Understands how her/his work is

assessed
2.17%
4.35%
26.09%
67.39%
5.
1.65
Has opportunities to revise/improve

work based on feedback
2.17%
13.04%
32.61%
52.17%
Item
Average
Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Not
Observed
%
Very
Evident
F. Well-Managed Learning
1.
2.57
Speaks and interacts respectfully with

teacher(s) and peers
13.04%
41.30%
34.78%
10.87%
2.
2.37
Follows classroom rules and works well

with others
10.87%
30.43%
43.48%
15.22%
3.
1.93
Transitions smoothly and efficiently to

activities
4.35%
26.09%
28.26%
41.30%
4.
1.39
Collaborates with other students during

student-centered activities
0.00%
6.52%
26.09%
67.39%
5.
2.28
Knows classroom routines, behavioral

expectations and consequences
10.87%
30.43%
34.78%
23.91%
Description
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 16
Fayette County
Item
Average
Evident
Somewhat
Evident
Not
Observed
%
Very
Evident
G. Digital Learning
1.
1.52
Uses digital tools/technology to gather,

evaluate, and/or use information for
learning
4.35%
15.22%
8.70%
71.74%
2.
1.43
Uses digital tools/technology to conduct

research, solve problems, and/or create
original works for learning
4.35%
13.04%
4.35%
78.26%
3.
1.26
Uses digital tools/technology to

communicate and work collaboratively
for learning
2.17%
6.52%
6.52%
84.78%
Description
Findings
Improvement Priority
Develop and implement a districtwide instructional process that ensures students are 1) clearly informed of
learning expectations and standards of performance, 2) provided exemplars of high quality work, 3) assessed
formatively (e.g., assessment elicits data to make differentiated instructional and learning strategy
adjustments) and 4) provided specific and timely feedback about their learning. Ensure the process is
monitored for effectiveness during regular and systematic classroom observations.
(Indicator 3.6)
Primary Indicator
Indicator 3.6
Evidence and Rationale
Student Performance Data:
Student performance data, as detailed in the attachments of this report, revealed a decrease in performance
from 2014 and 2015 that was significantly below the state average. The percentage of students meeting
benchmark levels on the ACT declined in all content areas from 2013-2014 to 2014-2015. The percentage of
students meeting benchmark levels on the ACT was below the state average in all areas. Math had the lowest
number of students meeting benchmark levels on the ACT with only 25 percent in 2014-2015.
Classroom Observation Data:
Classroom observations, as detailed in the Teaching and Learning Impact section of this report, revealed little
use of instructional practices that clearly informed students of learning expectations. It was evident/very
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 17
Fayette County
evident in 24 percent of the classrooms that students knew and strove to meet the high expectations of the
teacher. It was evident/very evident in 11 percent of classrooms that students were asked and/or quizzed
about individual progress/learning. Instances in which students were provided exemplars of high quality work
were evident/very evident in two percent of classrooms.
Stakeholder Survey Data:
Fifty-eight percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, All teachers in our school use a process
to inform students of their learning expectations and standards of performance, suggesting that a significant
percentage of the staff disagreed or were uncertain as to the existence of this effective practice. Forty-nine
percent of staff indicated that they agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, All teachers in our school use
multiple types of assessments to modify instruction and to revise the curriculum. Fifty-eight percent of
students indicated that they agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, All of my teachers explain their
expectations for learning and behavior so I can be successful, suggesting that 42 percent of students could
not confirm that this highly effective condition existed across the school.
Stakeholder Interviews:
Administrators were consistently unable to define or explain the district's instructional process. Some
administrators assigned to support Partnership Zone and Point of Contact schools indicated that the
instructional process was dependent on the individual school and the strength of the schools leadership.
Curriculum maps, common assessments and assignments were developed for English/Language Arts (ELA),
math, and science in grades K-8 and posted on the district and school websites. Administrators indicated an
expectation to use the documents, however no process was in place to monitor the implementation of the
curriculum document.
Documents and artifacts:
Reviews of curriculum maps, pacing guides, common assessments, common assignments, professional
development plans and survey results revealed no defined written expectations, monitoring or support for the
implementation of a district wide instructional process. In the May 14, 2015 letter to the FCPS School Board
Chair from the Kentucky Commissioner of Education, it was noted that the March, 2015 review had previously
identified the need for a district wide instructional plan. The district's current Self Assessment highlighted future
plans to create "clear monitoring procedures," to use "all data...to improve professional practice and plan at the
district level," to "communicate documents and proper use to school staffs" and to "determine what
instructional materials the district will support."
This Improvement Priority was originally developed in the March, 2015 Diagnostic Review and is referred to as
Improvement Priority 6 in the Leadership Assessment Addendum attached to this report. The district rated its
progress as "partially addressed." The Diagnostic Review Team rated it as "There is little or no evidence that
this Improvement Priority has been addressed."
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 18
Fayette County
The district has begun work on the Novice Reduction Pilot in partnership with KDE. The 30-60-90-day Big
Rock #1 Standards Curriculum/Instruction progress summaries highlighted the introduction of the Novice
Reduction Plan, the identification of curriculum work group chairs, communication plans with principals and
staff, development of timelines and various projected meetings.
The district offered as primary evidence of the development of a district wide instructional process its
Comprehensive District Improvement Plan (CDIP). A thorough review of the CDIP revealed that it contained six
major goals, six objectives, 21 strategies and 73 activities. There was no clear statement as to how all of these
strategies and activities were going to be coordinated to implement a district wide instructional process that
ensured students 1) are clearly informed of learning expectations and standards of performance, 2) are
provided exemplars of high quality work, 3) are assessed formatively (e.g., assessment elicits data for teachers
and students to make differentiated instructional and learning strategy adjustments) in order to fully engage
students as stakeholders in their learning, and 4) are provided specific and timely feedback about their
learning.
Develop and implement a systemic and systematic plan and process to monitor and adjust curriculum,
instruction and assessment based on student performance data. Ensure the process aligns with the purpose
and direction of the districts goals for student achievement.
(Indicator 3.2)
Primary Indicator
Indicator 3.2
Student performance data, as detailed in the attachments in this report, indicated that in 2014-2015 there was
a decrease in performance scores and the scores were significantly below state averages. The 2015
performance results indicated a 20 percent decrease in proficient/distinguished levels in math. Data review
supports that the district has not been effective in developing district-wide instructional processes that ensures
that curriculum, instruction and assessment are monitored and adjusted systematically based on student
performance data.
Classroom observations, as detailed in the eleot section of this report, revealed little evidence that
curriculum, instruction, and assessment were monitored and adjusted systematically based on data from
multiple assessments of student learning. It was evident/very evident in 11 percent of classrooms that students
were asked questions that required higher order thinking skills. It was evident/very evident in 11 percent of
classrooms that students were asked and/or quizzed about individual progress/learning. This low frequency of
questioning strategies supported the need to increase the use of formative instruction and assessment
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 19
Fayette County
strategies as part of a system plan.

Fifty-three percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, My child is given multiple
assessments to measure his/her understanding of what was taught. Similarly, fifty percent of teachers
agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, All teachers in our school monitor and adjust curriculum,
instruction, and assessment based on data from student assessments and examination of professional
practice, suggesting that half of the staff are ambivalent or uncertain as to the existence of this effective
practice.
Central office personnel were unable to articulate how the district had developed and implemented an ongoing
district-wide process to ensure that curriculum, instruction, and assessment were monitored and adjusted
systemically. Many staff noted that individual schools typically determined their own curriculum development
and monitoring plan and processes. District processes were described as "available" if the schools wanted to
use them, however, their use was not mandatory.
Several staff stated that the district had developed curriculum maps and pacing guides at the elementary and
middle school level. These documents have been uploaded onto the district website and icons have been
placed on every teachers computer. Some common assessments have also been created. Surveys about
curriculum maps and pacing guides were administered to a small population of teachers. However, many
interviewees confirmed that there was no schedule for when or how the assessment results were to be
reported to the district staff. There was also no clear process as to what would be done with the data.
Interviews with the central office staff further revealed that there was no continuous improvement process in
place to monitor and adjust curriculum, instruction and assessment. There was no systematic, collaborative
process in place to ensure alignment each time curriculum, instruction and/or assessments were reviewed or
revised. Master teachers reportedly created maps and guides, however, this was not a collaborative process.
Review of the district's 30-60-90-day plans, curriculum maps, pacing guides, common assessments and
surveys revealed that the district had neither developed nor implemented an ongoing district wide process that
ensured that curriculum, instruction, and assessment were monitored and adjusted systemically. The recent
work of district staff as evidenced in the newly developed Instructional Plan indicated significant intent to
develop and implement district wide processes, however, much implementation work remains to be done. The
30-60-90-day plans were offered as evidence that was developed from the district's participation in a Novice
Reduction Pilot program designed to reduce the number of learners scoring at the novice level on state
mandated assessments.
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 20
Fayette County
A significant outcome of the initial work on the Novice Reduction Pilot was the district's identification and
development of three "Big Rocks."
Big Rock #1 was described by the district staff as having been developed to address issues related to
standards, curriculum and instruction. This strategy is directly related to this Improvement Priority.
Big Rock #2 was described by the district staff as having been developed to address issues related to
continuous improvement and assessment. This strategy is directly related to this Improvement Priority.
Big Rock # 3 was described by the district as having been developed to address issues related to learning,
culture and environment. This strategy is indirectly related to this Improvement Priority, however, all six
Improvement Priorities are important pieces of developing an effective learning culture and environment
throughout the district, and therefore it is included here.
In a May 14, 2015 letter to the FCPS School Board Chair from the Kentucky Commissioner of Education it was
noted that a number of concerns regarding the district's support of Bryan Station High School had been
previously identified (February, 2014) and that many of these concerns remained a year later (March, 2015).
One concern noted was "The District does not have a district-wide instructional plan." This is still true.
progress as "partially addressed" and the Diagnostic Review Team concurred.
Develop, implement and continuously evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive student assessment
system that generates data and information from multiple assessment measures. Ensure these measures
include locally developed and standardized assessments of student learning. Ensure all personnel use data to
design, implement and evaluate continuous improvement plans to improve instruction and student learning and
to determine the effectiveness of all programs that support student learning. Ensure all professional and
support staff members are regularly and systematically trained and can implement a rigorous, individualized
professional development program related to the evaluation, interpretation and use of data.
(Indicator 5.1, Indicator 5.2, Indicator 5.3)
Primary Indicator
Indicator 5.1
Student performance data, as detailed in the attachments of this report, shows that student performance
results on standardized tests have not been used effectively to improve student performance outcomes. The
percentage of students scoring at the proficient/distinguished levels were below the state average for the last
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 21
Fayette County
three years in EOC/K-PREP assessed content areas. There was a decline in the number of students scoring
proficient/distinguished in English II, Algebra II, Biology, and US History from 2013-2015 to 2014-2015.
Algebra II has the lowest number of students scoring at the proficient/distinguished levels (17.2 percent) during
2014-2015.
Stakeholder feedback indicated 62 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed, Our school uses multiple
assessment measures to determine student learning and school performance. Fifty-two percent of staff
agreed/strongly agreed, Our school employs consistent assessment measures across classrooms and
courses. Fifty-two percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed, Our school has a systematic process for
collecting, analyzing, and using data, suggesting that a significant number of staff, nearly half, disagreed or
were uncertain as to the existence of a clearly defined and comprehensive assessment plan. Forty percent of
staff agreed/strongly agreed, Our school ensures all staff members are trained in the evaluation,
interpretation, and use of data, suggesting that the majority of staff, 60 percent, have not been trained in the
evaluation, interpretation and use of data.
District staff indicated that the district had recently identified two progress monitoring assessment tools and
they have begun to use these tools in some K-8 classrooms. However, implementation even within K-8
classrooms was described as inconsistent because use of these tools was optional for schools; thus, data
existed only for a small number of schools. For common assessments in particular, conversations with district
staff indicated that curriculum maps, pacing guides and common assessments have become available to K-8
teachers just recently (January/February 2016). One administrator summed it up succinctly in stating, "We
don't have a system right now so we began with identifying the tools we used." Another stated, ""We have a
ton of data but we don't review it as we should."
In the May 14, 2015 letter to the FCPS School Board Chair from the Kentucky Commissioner of Education, it
was noted that the March, 2015 review had previously identified the need for a "comprehensive data system
that is used for decision making at all levels, including instruction and student achievement." It was also noted
that the "district does not have a process for monitoring effectiveness of department work, nor collaboration
within and between departments regarding programs, processes, recommendations, etc." There was no
documentation offered to support that these needs have been systematically addressed in the past year.
this Improvement Priority has been addressed." Document reviews and interviews indicated that the district is
in the beginning stages of creating a comprehensive assessment plan. There was no evidence to show that
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 22
Fayette County
any type of systemic data analysis had taken place at this point that effectively addressed classroom
instruction. Interviews and observations both revealed that common assessments had not been implemented.
The district has begun using its Team Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS) protocol for teams to analyze data and
create next steps for improvement in student achievement with the Partnership Zone and Multi-Tiered Systems
of Support.
The district reported in its evidence overview for Standard 5 that "A turnover and continuing vacancy in staff at
the district level impeded implementation; thus, adjustments to administration of the test and interpretation and
analysis of the data that these tools are generating are still being made."
The district summarized its progress as: "The practices identified in Standard 5 are expected to yield high
results over time; however, the process of change is in the implementation stage. Identified areas of need are:
Continuing support of data analysis for continuous improvement by district leadership
Hiring a director of data, planning and program evaluation to oversee implementation
Clearly written processes for analyzing assessment and data practices: use to improve student learning
Time to implement practices with fidelity
Close monitoring and adjustment of practices based on analysis of data
Additional resources allocated to support schools in the Partnership Zone "
Implement and evaluate a systemic process for school and district leaders to monitor the effectiveness of
classroom instructional practices (e.g., regular collection of walkthrough data, review of unit/lesson plans,
examination of standardized and local assessment data, review of student work) and ensure teachers are
provided with immediate feedback and support to address the learning needs of all students.
(Indicator 2.6, Indicator 3.4)
Primary Indicator
Indicator 3.4
Student performance data, as detailed in the attachments of this report, showed that instructional strategies
have not improved and positively impacted student learning. Although Bryan Station High School met its
annual measurable objective (AMO) in 2014-2015, it did not meet its Graduation Rate Goal in 2013-2014 or
2014-2015. The percentage of students scoring at the proficient/distinguished levels was below the state
average for the last three years in End of Course/Kentucky-Performance Rating for Educational Progress
(EOC/K-PREP) assessed content areas. There was a decline in the number of students scoring
proficient/distinguished in English II, Algebra II, Biology, and U.S. History from 2013-2014 to 2014-2015.
Algebra II had the lowest number of students scoring at the proficient/distinguished levels (17.2 percent) during
2014-2015.
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 23
Fayette County

Classroom observation data, as detailed in the Teaching and Learning Impact section of this report, indicated
that Bryan Station High School does not consistently implement high-yield instructional strategies across
content areas and grade levels. Observers noted that in only 13 percent of classrooms that teachers provided
students with differentiated learning opportunities and activities and instances of students being provided
additional/alternative instruction and feedback at the appropriate level of challenge for student needs were
evident/very evident in two percent of classrooms. Additionally, instances of students being provided
exemplars were evident/very evident in only two percent of classrooms. Furthermore, in only 13 percent of
classrooms was it evident/very evident that students engaged in rigorous coursework, discussion, and/or tasks.
It was evident/very evident that students were tasked with activities and learning that were challenging but
attainable in 22 percent of classrooms. It was evident/very evident in 15 percent of classrooms that students
were actively engaged in learning activities, and in 15 percent of the classrooms it was evident/very evident
that students participated in activities, which made connections to real-life experiences.
Stakeholder survey data indicated 66 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our schools
purpose statement is based on shared values and beliefs that guide decision-making. Sixty-nine percent of
staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our schools leaders hold all staff members accountable for
student learning. Sixty-five percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our schools leaders
regularly evaluate staff members on criteria designed to improve teaching and learning. Fifty-two percent of
staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our schools leaders ensure all staff members use
supervisory feedback to improve student learning."
Interview data revealed that plans were being made and discussions were occurring regarding the creation of a
system to monitor and support school-wide classroom instructional practices. However, the district had not
established the requisite monitoring and feedback plan and strategies. Several district and school staff
members stated that a classroom observation walkthrough schedule had been created, and some
walkthroughs had occurred in some schools. Walkthrough data had not been reviewed and the feedback had
not been shared at the classroom level. Several district staff members stated that most of the district initiatives
were optional at the school level. District and school level staff members generally indicated that common
assessments, unit lessons and pacing guides had been created; however, implementation had not occurred.
A review of the Novice Reduction Plan did not reveal the existence of a districtwide process for implementing
and monitoring classroom instructional practices. A review of meeting agendas and minutes, training topics
and sign-in sheets, protocols, walkthrough schedules and curriculum documents (pacing guides, curriculum
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 24
Fayette County
maps and common assessments) did not reveal a districtwide process for monitoring classroom instruction.
This Improvement Priority was originally included in the March, 2015, Diagnostic Review Report and is referred
to as Improvement Priority 2 in the Leadership Assessment Addendum attached to this report. The district
rated its progress as "partially addressed" and the Diagnostic Review Team concurred. The Team's review of
artifacts and evidence indicated that the district had initiated a walkthrough process to monitor instructional
practices. The district had purchased the eleot, trained staff and scheduled eleot walkthroughs. Due to the
recentness of the implementation of these walkthroughs (February, 2016), no evidence existed to show that
data were regularly and effectively used to monitor and support improvements in instructional practice. In
addition, the Team found no evidence to show that teachers had received feedback that would enhance
instruction.
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 25
Fayette County
Leadership Capacity
The capacity of leadership to ensure an institution's progress towards its stated objectives is an essential
element of organizational effectiveness. An institution's leadership capacity includes the fidelity and
commitment to its institutional purpose and direction, the effectiveness of governance and leadership to enable
the institution to realize its stated objectives, the ability to engage and involve stakeholders in meaningful and
productive ways, and the capacity to enact strategies to improve results of student learning.
Purpose and direction are critical to successful institutions. A study conducted in 2010 by the London-based
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) reported that "in addition to improving performance,
the research indicates that having a sense of shared purpose also improves employee engagement" and that
"lack of understanding around purpose can lead to demotivation and emotional detachment, which in turn lead
to a disengaged and dissatisfied workforce."
AdvancED has found through its evaluation of best practices in more than 32,000 institutions around the world
that a successful institution commits to a shared purpose and direction and establishes expectations for
student learning that are aligned with the institutions' vision and supported by internal and external
stakeholders. These expectations serve as the focus for assessing student performance and overall institution
effectiveness.
Governance and leadership are key factors in raising institutional quality. Leaders, both local administrators
and governing boards/authorities, are responsible for ensuring all learners achieve while also managing many
other facets of an institution. Institutions that function effectively do so without tension between the governing
board/authority, administrators, and educators and have established relationships of mutual respect and a
shared vision (Feuerstein & Opfer, 1998). In a meta-analysis of educational institution leadership research,
Leithwood and Sun (2012) found that leaders (school and governing boards/authority) can significantly
"influence school conditions through their achievement of a shared vision and agreed-on goals for the
organization, their high expectations and support of organizational members, and their practices that
strengthen school culture and foster collaboration within the organization." With the increasing demands of
accountability placed on institutional leaders, leaders who empower others need considerable autonomy and
involve their communities to attain continuous improvement goals. Leaders who engage in such practices
experience a greater level of success (Fink & Brayman, 2006). Similarly, governing boards/authorities that
focus on policy-making are more likely to allow institutional leaders the autonomy to make decisions that
impact teachers and students and are less responsive to politicization than boards/authorities that respond to
vocal citizens (Greene, 1992).
AdvancED's experience, gained through evaluation of best practices, has indicated that a successful institution
has leaders who are advocates for the institution's vision and improvement efforts. The leaders provide
direction and allocate resources to implement curricular and co-curricular programs that enable students to
achieve expectations for their learning. Leaders encourage collaboration and shared responsibility for school
improvement among stakeholders. The institution's policies, procedures, and organizational conditions ensure
equity of learning opportunities and support for innovation.
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 26
Fayette County
Standard 1 - Purpose and Direction

The system maintains and communicates at all levels of the organization a purpose and direction for
continuous improvement that commit to high expectations for learning as well as shared values and beliefs
about teaching and learning.
Indicator
Description
Review Team
Score
1.1
The system engages in a systematic, inclusive, and comprehensive process to

review, revise, and communicate a system-wide purpose for student success.
1.56
1.2
The system ensures that each school engages in a systematic, inclusive, and
comprehensive process to review, revise, and communicate a school purpose for
student success.
1.11
1.3
The school leadership and staff at all levels of the system commit to a culture
that is based on shared values and beliefs about teaching and learning and
supports challenging, equitable educational programs and learning experiences
for all students that include achievement of learning, thinking, and life skills.
1.11
1.4
Leadership at all levels of the system implement a continuous improvement

process that provides clear direction for improving conditions that support
student learning.
1.00
Standard 2 - Governance and Leadership

The system operates under governance and leadership that promote and support student performance and
system effectiveness.
Indicator
Description
Review Team
Score
2.1
The governing body establishes policies and supports practices that ensure
effective administration of the system and its schools.
1.78
2.2
The governing body operates responsibly and functions effectively.
2.00
2.3
The governing body ensures that the leadership at all levels has the autonomy to
meet goals for achievement and instruction and to manage day-to-day
operations effectively.
2.33
2.4
Leadership and staff at all levels of the system foster a culture consistent with the
system's purpose and direction.
1.33
2.5
Leadership engages stakeholders effectively in support of the system's purpose

and direction.
2.22
2.6
Leadership and staff supervision and evaluation processes result in improved

professional practice in all areas of the system and improved student success.
1.33
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 27
Fayette County
Findings
Create and implement guiding documents (e.g., policies, procedures, plans, protocols) that clearly establish
expectations for individual schools to systematically review, revise and communicate a school purpose and
direction for improvement in student achievement that commits to high expectations for learning. Ensure that
these processes include clear timelines for implementation and are inclusive of all stakeholder groups.
(Indicator 1.2)
Primary Indicator
Indicator 1.2
Although Bryan Station High School achieved the milestone of exiting Priority Status, a review of the Next
Generation Learners achievement data revealed regression from an overall score of 57.4 in school year 201314 to 55.2 for school year 2014-2015.
The new superintendent's core values statements include foster collaborative family partnerships, and
families are our partners. There was no survey evidence of this value being operationalized across all
schools, and particularly at Bryan Station High School. Survey data revealed that district expectations,
supports, and monitoring have been ineffective in ensuring that the Bryan Station High School engaged its
stakeholders in a collaborative process to establish and effectively communicate a purpose and direction for
improving student success.
In 2014, seventy-two percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our schools purpose
statement is clearly focused on student success. The fall, 2015 parent survey was essentially unchanged with
69 percent who agreed/strongly agreed with the statement.
In the fall, 2014, 52 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our schools purpose
statement is formally reviewed and revised with involvement from parents. The fall, 2015 parent survey was
essentially unchanged with 50 percent who agreed/strongly agreed with this statement.
In the fall, 2014, 66 percent of teachers agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our schools purpose
statement is formally reviewed and revised with involvement from stakeholders. The fall, 2015 teacher survey
regressed to 53 percent who agreed/strongly agreed.
In the fall, 2014, 67 percent of teachers agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our schools purpose
statement is supported by the policies and practices adopted by the school board or governing body. The fall,
2015 teacher survey was essentially unchanged with 65 percent who agreed/strongly agreed with the
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 28
Fayette County
statement.
When asked about how the district "established expectations for individual schools to systematically engage in
a process to review, revise and communicate a school purpose and direction for improvement in student
achievement that commits to high expectations for learning," the following answers were provided.
"Schools historically have been free agents."
"Schools do not know necessary practices well enough to articulate them."
"We've had to examine - is it really all about kids?"
"No real direction from CO."
The projected release in April, 2016 of the Superintendents Entry Plan is anticipated to be informed by data
from five external community listening sessions as well as internal deliberations. The future purpose of the
district, as articulated through the Entry Plan, will be influenced by multiple stakeholder groups to ensure
student success. As such, the Diagnostic Review Team infers from multiple interviews with district staff that
this process will be inclusive and comprehensive.
Although the Comprehensive District Improvement Plan (CDIP) contains aspirational goals for moving more
students to proficiency, there was no evidence offered of coordination with each school on how their individual
Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP) related to the larger goals stated in the CDIP. One
operational goal stated, School Leadership Team reviews preliminary assessment data, communicates school
instructional focus and goals to all shareholders and prepares school GAP plan (doc: Comprehensive School
Improvement Plan Outline and Deadline Cycle). However, there was no evidence from documents of a
systemic process for dissemination of a timely project plan with each school to support and promulgate the
individual schools message of purpose vis-a-vis the CSIP. For example, there was evidence of one Focus
School meeting with central office staff to review and communicate school purpose (doc: Dec 15.15 CSIP
Review Agenda); however, interviews determined that the original intention of a school wide CSIP working
session was to allow time away from the building for CSIP authors with little intentional direction. Finally, there
was no evidence of central office staff in building capacity, or establishing expectations, for schools to broaden
their stakeholder engagement around both the CDIP and CSIP.
In the May 14, 2015 letter to the FCPS School Board Chair from the Kentucky Commissioner of Education, it
was noted that the March, 2015 review had previously identified that:
"The district does not have systems/processes that ensure continuous improvement, beginning with a process
to communicate a purpose for the district."
"No accountability exists for building leaders."
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 29
Fayette County
this Improvement Priority has been addressed."
The district submitted little evidence of having addressed this Improvement Priority. There was a process for
community engagement, and external audits had been commissioned to inform the Superintendents Entry
Plan, however, there was no evidence offered to support a clear direction and procedures to engage all
schools in communicating their purpose as it relates to student success. The School Board signed a document
titled Standards of Practice, however, no documented evidence was provided to support that it was being
internalized in the operation and beliefs of all board members as they engaged the community.
Develop and implement a process that shifts the values, beliefs and culture of leadership at all levels to a
collaborative school system rather than a system of schools. The plan shall address, but not be limited to, how
1) system leadership and school level leadership will collaborate on developing a systemic process for
improving student learning and the conditions that support learning, 2) all stakeholder groups will work
collaboratively and consistently in meaningful ways to build and sustain ownership of the systems purpose,
direction and activities, 3) comprehensive student and system performance data will be used to develop
measurable performance targets that incorporate measurable objectives, strategies, activities, resources and
timelines for achieving all improvement goals, and 4) system personnel will hold one another accountable for
and evaluate the overall quality of the implementation of all interventions and strategies.
(Indicator 1.4)
Primary Indicator
Indicator 1.4
Student performance data as described in the attachments of this report, data did not suggest that the district
has established highly effective improvement planning processes that yield consistent improvements in student
achievement.
Survey data does not reveal the existence of well-defined and systematic processes for using data to guide
improvement planning across the school system. Stakeholder surveys revealed that 35 percent of parents
agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, All of my child's teachers work as a team to help my child learn.
Additionally, 45 percent of parents agreed/strong agreed with the statement, Our school ensures that all staff
members monitor and report the achievement of school goals. Over half of students agreed/strongly agreed
with the statement, In my school, teachers work together to improve student learning.
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 30
Fayette County
Interview data showed that district and school staff members reported the district had historically taken a
"hands off" approach to the schools. One person described it as "We have 66 individual mini-districts." Several
commented that considerable confusion existed as to the authority of the School-Based Decision Making
(SBDM) Committees at each school. Many said that they had been told by their superiors that the role of the
central office staff was to support the schools only if they wanted it. Other staff members said that the
approach being used now is to offer programs and services to the schools and if they refuse then require the
school to demonstrate how its processes are equally as effective as those offered by the district.
A review of a letter dated May 14, 2015, to the FCPS School Board Chair from the Kentucky Commissioner of
Education, showed that the March, 2015 review had previously identified that the following: "The District does
not have clearly defined roles and responsibilities of district leaders that allow empowerment to implement
programs, processes, etc. No accountability exists for building leaders. The District departments function in
isolation of each other. The District does not have comprehensive professional development plans for
supporting the needs of teachers. The District does not have evidence of an understanding of the return on
investment (time and money) for ensuring student success."
These areas all remain unaddressed in any significant manner. The district offered its CDIP and its Novice
Reduction Plan as evidence of addressing this Indicator. Neither document addressed the fundamental
leadership question in the district of "Are we a school system or a system (collection) of schools?"
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 31
Fayette County
The use and distribution of resources must be aligned and supportive of the needs of an institution and the
students served. Institutions must ensure that resources are aligned with the stated mission and are distributed
equitably so that the needs of students are adequately and effectively addressed. The utilization of resources
includes an examination of the allocation and use of resources, the equity of resource distribution to need, the
ability of the institution to ensure appropriate levels of funding and sustainability of resources, as well as
evidence of long-range capital and resource planning effectiveness.
Institutions, regardless of their size, need access to sufficient resources and systems of support to be able to
engage in sustained and meaningful efforts that result in a continuous improvement cycle. Indeed, a study
conducted by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (Pan, D., Rudo, Z., Schneider, C., & SmithHansen, L., 2003) "demonstrated a strong relationship between resources and student success... both the
level of resources and their explicit allocation seem to affect educational outcomes."
AdvancED has found through its own evaluation of best practices in the more than 32,000 institutions in the
AdvancED Network that a successful institution has sufficient human, material, and fiscal resources to
implement a curriculum that enables students to achieve expectations for student learning, meets special
needs, and complies with applicable regulations. The institution employs and allocates staff members who are
well qualified for their assignments. The institution provides a safe learning environment for students and staff.
The institution provides ongoing learning opportunities for all staff members to improve their effectiveness and
ensures compliance with applicable governmental regulations.
Standard 4 - Resources and Support Systems

The system has resources and provides services in all schools that support its purpose and direction to ensure
success for all students.
Indicator
Description
Review Team
Score
4.1
The system engages in a systematic process to recruit, employ, and retain a

sufficient number of qualified professional and support staff to fulfill their roles
and responsibilities and support the purpose and direction of the system,
individual schools, and educational programs.
1.78
4.2
Instructional time, material resources, and fiscal resources are sufficient to

support the purpose and direction of the system, individual schools, educational
programs, and system operations.
2.11
4.3
The system maintains facilities, services, and equipment to provide a safe, clean,
and healthy environment for all students and staff.
2.22
4.4
The system demonstrates strategic resource management that includes longrange planning in support of the purpose and direction of the system.
1.89
4.5
The system provides, coordinates, and evaluates the effectiveness of information

resources and related personnel to support educational programs throughout the
system.
2.11
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 32
Indicator
Fayette County
Description
Review Team
Score
4.6
The system provides a technology infrastructure and equipment to support the

system's teaching, learning, and operational needs.
2.11
4.7
The system provides, coordinates, and evaluates the effectiveness of support

systems to meet the physical, social, and emotional needs of the student
population being served.
2.11
4.8
The system provides, coordinates, and evaluates the effectiveness of services

that support the counseling, assessment, referral, educational, and career
planning needs of all students.
1.89
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 33
Fayette County
Conclusion
District leadership has begun to address the Improvement Priorities identified in the March, 2015 Diagnostic
Review. During the summer of 2015, the district began its work on a Novice Reduction Pilot in partnership with
the Kentucky Department of Education. District and school leadership collaborated to identify three main goals.
From that work, 30-60-90 day plans were developed to strengthen the Key Core Work Processes and systems
that the district needed in order to support its schools consistency and with fidelity. The three main goals ("Big
Rocks") were described as the basis for the establishment of needed systems and processes. Big Rock #1
addressed "standards, curriculum and instruction." Big Rock #2 addressed "continuous improvement and
assessment." Big Rock #3 addressed "learning, culture and environment." The district embraced its Novice
Reduction Pilot partnership with KDE and made it the cornerstone of its academic improvement efforts.
Additionally, district leadership clearly stated that they are working to accomplish two moral imperatives: 1) to
move each and every student to proficiency, and 2) to take students who are already proficient and move them
to global competency.
The Fayette County Public School Board of Education hired a new superintendent who began work August 3,
2016. Shortly afterwards unforeseen health issues necessitated an extended medical leave of absence. Since
his return to service, he has been implementing his entry plan by gathering data and evidence from a number
of sources and community stakeholders through a series of Community Listening Sessions. The
superintendent has been establishing and modeling a systematic, inclusive and comprehensive approach to
developing and communicating a system-wide purpose and direction. In his first email message to district staff,
he outlined his five core values: 1) Students First, 2) Victory is in the Classroom, 3) Leadership, Capacity
Building and Collaboration for Results are Keys to Success, 4) Families are our Partners, and 5) It Takes an
Entire Community to Ensure the Success of Our Public Schools. The superintendent, in concert with the board,
has commissioned program audits in the areas of English language learners, gifted and talented supports,
special education and career and technical education.
The school board, by unanimous vote on October 26, 2015, approved a Standards of Practice document
outlining 14 agreements that the Board drafted during a retreat with the superintendent. These statements
defined a commitment to ensure that students in FCPS receive the best education possible. This document
was offered as evidence of the Board's commitment to placing the interests of students above all others in the
decision making process, upholding all laws, monitoring and updating policies as necessary to improve student
achievement and maintaining an unwavering focus on the achievement of all students, regardless of race,
class, ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, special need or English language proficiency. The Board also
recognized its role and responsibility in collaboration with the superintendent to increase student achievement
and leave the day-to-day operation of the district to the superintendent and staff.
District leadership has initiated implementation of the Novice Reduction Plan. District staff have revised some
curriculum documents and begun communication about this work to schools and the public. In order to monitor
continuous improvement and assessment, a District Assessment Team (DAT) was developed. The team's
charge is to create a balanced assessment program for the district. District leadership reviewed and revised
the Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS), including but not limited to Response to Intervention (RtI). The
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 34
Fayette County
Positive Behavior Instructional Support System (PBIS) was fully implemented starting with a facilitated selfassessment at each school. All of these activities are evidence that the district is genuinely committed to
improving the performance of its students.
The strengths and actions described above are all starting points for effectively addressing the six
Improvement Priorities in this report.
The district still has much work to do in terms of developing well-defined and functional continuous
improvement processes. In recent years, district leadership has operated in organizational silos. The Kentucky
Commissioner of Education addressed many of these issues in a letter (May 14, 2015) to the Board chairman.
The letter highlighted that many key issues identified in two previous Diagnostic Reviews had not been
adequately addressed. The letter identified 13 significant deficiencies. Seven of these deficiencies are restated
here as they highlight the issues still requiring significant action.
1) "The District does not have systems/processes that ensure continuous improvement beginning with a
process to communicate a purpose for the district."
2) "The District does not have clearly defined roles and responsibilities of district leaders that allow
empowerment to implement programs, processes, etc."
3) "No accountability exists for building leaders."
4) "The District does not have a process for monitoring effectiveness of department work, nor effective
collaboration within and between departments regarding programs, processes, recommendations, etc."
5) "The District departments function in isolation of each other."
6) "The District does not have evidence of an understanding of the return on investment (time and money) for
ensuring student success."
7) "The District has no communicated processes for ensuring students are prepared to succeed at the next
level."
The fundamental issue that the district needs to address is how it defines its primary purpose and role. The
question that summarizes the issue succinctly is "Are we a school system or a system of schools?" This
question was stated repeatedly by many district leaders as the fundamental question that needed to be
addressed. The history has been that district staff members have seen their primary purpose as being
"available" if called upon by the schools, but not as the organization responsible for the success of the school
and ultimately responsible for the success of all students. Several staff members described their organization
as being a central office with 66 individual school systems. Nobody stated and no evidence was provided that
indicated the district was functioning cohesively as a school system.
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 35
Fayette County
As a result of the lack of clear focus and direction in terms of primary purpose, there were no systemic
continuous improvement processes in place. The six Improvement Priorities identified in this report are all
related to the need to develop and implement system wide processes that include accountability measures at
all levels of the system.
The institution should use the findings from this review to guide the continuous improvement process. The
institution must address the Improvement Priorities listed below:
-
Create and implement guiding documents (e.g., policies, procedures, plans, protocols) that clearly
establish expectations for individual schools to systematically review, revise and communicate a school
purpose and direction for improvement in student achievement that commits to high expectations for
learning. Ensure that these processes include clear timelines for implementation and are inclusive of all
stakeholder groups.
Develop and implement a districtwide instructional process that ensures students are 1) clearly informed
of learning expectations and standards of performance, 2) provided exemplars of high quality work, 3)
assessed formatively (e.g., assessment elicits data to make differentiated instructional and learning
strategy adjustments) and 4) provided specific and timely feedback about their learning. Ensure the
process is monitored for effectiveness during regular and systematic classroom observations.
Develop and implement a process that shifts the values, beliefs and culture of leadership at all levels to a
collaborative school system rather than a system of schools. The plan shall address, but not be limited
to, how 1) system leadership and school level leadership will collaborate on developing a systemic
process for improving student learning and the conditions that support learning, 2) all stakeholder groups
will work collaboratively and consistently in meaningful ways to build and sustain ownership of the
systems purpose, direction and activities, 3) comprehensive student and system performance data will
be used to develop measurable performance targets that incorporate measurable objectives, strategies,
activities, resources and timelines for achieving all improvement goals, and 4) system personnel will hold
one another accountable for and evaluate the overall quality of the implementation of all interventions
and strategies.
Develop and implement a systemic and systematic plan and process to monitor and adjust curriculum,
instruction and assessment based on student performance data. Ensure the process aligns with the
purpose and direction of the districts goals for student achievement.
Develop, implement and continuously evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive student
assessment system that generates data and information from multiple assessment measures. Ensure
these measures include locally developed and standardized assessments of student learning. Ensure all
personnel use data to design, implement and evaluate continuous improvement plans to improve
instruction and student learning and to determine the effectiveness of all programs that support student
learning. Ensure all professional and support staff members are regularly and systematically trained and
can implement a rigorous, individualized professional development program related to the evaluation,
interpretation and use of data.
Implement and evaluate a systemic process for school and district leaders to monitor the effectiveness of
classroom instructional practices (e.g., regular collection of walkthrough data, review of unit/lesson
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 36
Fayette County
plans, examination of standardized and local assessment data, review of student work) and ensure
teachers are provided with immediate feedback and support to address the learning needs of all
students.
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 37
Fayette County
Addenda
Team Roster
Member
Dr. George W Griffin
Brief Biography
Dr. Griffin holds B.A. and M.Ed. degrees from Duke University. He received his
Ph.D.in Special Education from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Primary areas of concentration included the education of students with learning
disabilities and/or behavior problems, and educational administration. During his
40-year education career Griffin has been a special education teacher, high
school principal, central office program director, state department program
director, and university professor. He has extensive experience in alternative
school programming; having served as a school director and statewide program
director for services for violent and assaultive youth in North Carolina. Griffin has
served as the Department Chair in the Department of Educational Leadership,
Research, and Technology at North Carolina Central University. He has also
served as a Special Education Due Process Hearing Officer in North Carolina.
Griffin is the author of several entries in the Encyclopedia of Educational
Leadership and Administration as well as a contributor to several special
education textbooks and professional journals.
Dr. Griffin is an independent educational consultant. He serves as a Lead
Evaluator with AdvancED and has lead reviews in numerous schools and school
districts throughout the United States and in the Middle East. He was the keynote
speaker and a session presenter at the first AdvancED International Learning
Disabilities Conference (May, 2013) in Beirut, Lebanon. He has also presented
interactive training sessions at AdvancED Global Education Conferences in the
United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.
Ms. Leesa K. Moman
Leesa Moman currently serves as an Educational Recovery Leader with the

Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) providing support to identified focus
school districts as they work to improve student academic performance. . Her
previous work included positions as a Highly Skilled Educator and Educational
Recovery Director for KDE. Leesa also has work experiences in Daviess County
Schools, KY as a special education teacher, special education consultant,
principal, director of special education and assistant superintendent. She also
currently serves as an adjunct professor at Western Kentucky University in
Owensboro, KY.
Mrs. Nickie A. Blackburn
Nickie Blackburn currently serves as an Instructional Coach for the Carter

County School District, where she works with teachers and students from
Preschool through 12th grade. Mrs. Blackburn is in her thirteenth year in
education, with twelve years of classroom experience. Previous to teaching,
Nickie worked in the banking industry with positions as internal auditor, branch
manager, and regional sales coordinator. She holds a BBA in Accounting, a
Masters of Business Administration Degree with an emphasis in Economics, P 5 Elementary Certification for Teaching, an Education Specialists Degree, and
National Board Certification in Reading and Literacy.
Jenny Knipp
Jenny Knipp has taught 20 years at the middle school level and is currently an
Instructional Coach for the Carter County School District. Mrs. Knipp holds a
Master's Degree in Counseling and a Rank I in Instructional Supervision. She is
currently working on her Education Specialist.
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 38
Member
Ryan Montgomery
Fayette County
Brief Biography
Currently, Ryan is an Educational Recovery Specialist for the middle and high
schools of Dayton, Kentucky. This role builds on the transformation experience
as Curriculum Specialist at Pulaski County High School, which the Leadership
Team and staff took in three years from PLA status to consistently ranking
among the top 2% of state academic rankings.
Between 2010 and 2013, Ryan simultaneously maintained two to three high
demand roles for the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS), serving as
Manager of Academic Planning & Scheduling (APS), Manager of Credit
Recovery, and Director (Interim) of the Office of College & Career Readiness.
For leading teams to high-stakes system deliverables, Ryan was recognized as
the CAO's Employee of the Month, and the APS team he recruited, hired, and
passed along the great training he had received went on to be recognized as the
first DCPS Team of the Year.
Prior to administrative roles, Ryan was a high school Social Studies teacher,
recognized as the 2007 Teacher of the Year at McKinley Technology High
School, a STEM magnet transformation design in DCPS. Ryan began his career
building on the success of his high school AP U.S. History teacher at his alma
mater in Danville, Kentucky.
Mrs. Carla Jean Stith
Carla J. Stith currently serves as the Curriculum/Federal Funds Coordinator with

the Mason County School System. In this role, she is responsible for curriculum
and instruction, professional development, and federal programs. Mrs. Stith has
over 22 years of experience in education where she has served in a number of
roles including, two years as a special education collaboration teacher, nine
years as a middle school math teacher, one year as Region 4 Mathematics
Consultant, six years as assistant principal, and two years as the district Math
Specialist.
Carla holds a Bachelor of Arts in Middle Grades (5-8) Math Component and LBD
(K-12) from Morehead State University, a Master of Arts in Education
Administration from the University of Dayton, Master of Arts in School
Administration from Morehead State University, and Master of Arts in
Superintendent from Morehead State University.
Dr. Leslie R Taylor
Leslie Taylor currently is an Evaluation Research Specialist in the Data

Management, Research, and Evaluation department at Jefferson County Public
Schools (JCPS). Leslie came to JCPS after working in the Commissioners
Delivery Unit (CDU) at the Kentucky Department of Education as Lead Research
Analyst. Prior to working on education research in Kentucky, Leslie worked for
Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO) as a Research Scientist
to provide technical and research assistance to many state and local education
agencies, including evaluations of state and district programs, curriculum and
instruction, assessments, and policy through on-site school evaluations and
validity studies. In addition, she served on national research projects in her work
with HumRRO, such as an evaluator of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) and the Center on Education Policys longitudinal study of
NCLB Impact on Increasing Achievement and Reducing Gaps. Leslie began her
career in higher education teaching and conducting research on cognition and
learning, especially in early childhood. She holds a Ph.D. in Experimental
Cognitive Psychology.
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 39
Member
Mr. Todd Tucker
Fayette County
Brief Biography
Todd is currently employed by the Kentucky Department of Education as an
Educational Recovery Leader working with Priority Schools. Prior to this
position, Todd served as a principal and assistant principal in a high school in
Central Kentucky and began his career as a middle school math teacher. Todd
has also been a regional trainer for the National Institute for School Leadership.
He has co-lead two cohorts in Richmond, Kentucky.
During his tenure at KDE, Todd assisted the leadership team in the
transformation of Pulaski County High School from a school labeled as priority to
a distinguished high school ranking in the 97th percentile the past three years.
While at PCHS, the school was identified by the Department of Education as a
Hub School whose purpose is to provide a lab of support and HUB of learning
activity for both students and adults for schools within the region. Todd is
responsible for scheduling and providing guidance for visiting schools to support
their school improvement efforts.
Tony Watts
Tony Watts entered the education field in 2000 after working for 7 years in the
Restaurant business. Tony earned his teaching certificate and masters degree
through the MAT program at Northern Kentucky University. Tony continued his
education and earned a masters in leadership, supervisor of instruction
certification, and superintendent certification. Tony has worked in diverse
districts during his tenure. He was an English teacher and Dean of Discipline at
Holmes Middle School. He was an assistant principal at Conner High School
and became the principal at Newport High School. Tony led Newport High
School out of PLA status. Tony is currently an Educational Recovery Leader at
Dayton High School.
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 40
Fayette County
About AdvancED
AdvancED is the world leader in providing improvement and accreditation services to education providers of all
types in their pursuit of excellence in serving students. AdvancED serves as a trusted partner to more than
32,000 public and private schools and school systems enrolling more than 20 million students - across the
United States and 70 countries.
In 2006, the North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement (NCA CASI),
the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement (SACS
CASI), both founded in 1895, and the National Study of School Evaluation (NSSE) came together to form
AdvancED: one strong, unified organization dedicated to education quality. In 2011, the Northwest
Accreditation Commission (NWAC) that was founded in 1917 became part of AdvancED.
Today, NCA CASI, NWAC and SACS CASI serve as accreditation divisions of AdvancED. The Accreditation
Divisions of AdvancED share research-based quality standards that cross school system, state, regional,
national, and international boundaries. Accompanying these standards is a unified and consistent process
designed to engage educational institutions in continuous improvement.
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 41
Fayette County
References
-
Alwin, L. (2002). The will and the way of data use. School Administrator, 59(11), 11.
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voxx, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S.,
Nuebrand, M., & Tsai, Y. (2010). Teachers' mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the
classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133-180.
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. (2012). Shared purpose: the golden thread?
London: CIPD.
Colbert, J., Brown, R., Choi, S., & Thomas, S. (2008). An investigation of the impacts of teacher-driven
professional development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 134-154.
Conley, D.T. (2007). Redefining college readiness (Vol. 3). Eugene, OR: Educational Policy
Improvement Center.
Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing school
systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los Angeles, CA: Center on
Educational Governance, USC.
Dembosky, J., Pane, J., Barney, H., & Christina, R. (2005). Data driven decision making in
Southwestern Pennsylvania school districts. Working paper. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Ding, C. & Sherman, H. (2006). Teaching effectiveness and student achievement: Examining the
relationship. Educational Research Quarterly, 29 (4), 40-51.
Doyle, D. P. (2003). Data-driven decision making: Is it the mantra of the month or does it have staying
power? T.H.E. Journal, 30(10), 19-21.
Feuerstein, A., & Opfer, V. D. (1998). School board chairmen and school superintendents: An analysis
of perceptions concerning special interest groups and educational governance. Journal of School
Leadership, 8, 373-398.
Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2006). School leadership succession and the challenges of change.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 42 (62), 61-89.
Greene, K. (1992). Models of school-board policy-making. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28
(2), 220-236.
Horng, E., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal time-use and school effectiveness. American
Journal of Education 116, (4) 492-523.
Lafee, S. (2002). Data-driven districts. School Administrator, 59(11), 6-7, 9-10, 12, 14-15.
Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The Nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A metaanalytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48 (387). 388-423.
Marks, H., Louis, K.S., & Printy, S. (2002). The capacity for organizational learning: Implications for
pedagogy and student achievement. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), Organizational learning and school
improvement (p. 239-266). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
McIntire, T. (2002). The administrator's guide to data-driven decision making. Technology and
Learning, 22(11), 18-33.
Pan, D., Rudo, Z., Schneider, C., & Smith-Hansen, L. (2003). Examination of resource allocation in
education: connecting spending to student performance. Austin, TX: SEDL.
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 42
Fayette County
Attachments
The following attachments have been included in this report.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Student Performance Team Worksheet- Final

Stakeholder Survey Plus/Delta- Final
Diagnostic Review Team Schedule- Final
Leadership Assessment Addendum- Final
Document
Generated
On Inc.
AprilAll7,rights
2016 Advance
Education,
Page 43
Student Performance Data

School Name: Bryan Station High School
Annual Measurable Objective (AMO)
Year
Prior Year
Overall Score
AMO Goal
Overall Score
Met AMO
Goal
Met
Participation
Rate Goal
Met
Graduation
Rate Goal
2014-2015
65.5
63.6
65.5
Yes
No
No
2013-2014
55.2
56.2
62.6
Yes
Yes
no
PLUS
DELTA
Met AMO goal for 2013-2014 and 20142015
Met Participation rate goal for 2013-2014
Did not meet Graduation rate goal for

2013-2014 or 2014-2015
Did not meet Participation rate goal for
2014-2015
Percentages of Students Scoring at Proficient/Distinguished (P/D) Levels on the K-PREP End-of-Course

Assessments at the School and in the State (2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015)
Content
Area
%P/D
School
(12-13)
%P/D State
(12-13)
%P/D School
(13-14)
%P/D State
(13-14)
%P/D
School
(14-15)
%P/D State (1415)
English II
50.0
55.8
50.2
55.4
45.9
56.8
Algebra II
28.3
36.0
37.0
37.9
17.2
38.2
Biology
23.6
36.3
24.5
39.8
22.9
39.7
U.S.
History
42.0
51.3
55.4
58.0
45.6
56.9
Writing
47.7
48.2
37.3
43.3
38.1
50.0
Language
Mech.
40.2
51.4
29.8
49.9
33.1
51.6
PLUS
DELTA
Students scoring at the
The percentage of students scoring at the

Proficient/Distinguished levels during the
12-13, 13-14 and 14-15 school years
Proficient/Distinguished levels in writing

demonstrated a slight increase between
the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school
years.
Students scoring Proficient/Distinguished
in Language Mechanics increased from
29.8% in the 2013-2014 school year to
33.1% in the 2014-2015 school year.
was below state average in each

EOC/KPREP assessed content area.
The following content areas show a
decline between the 2013-2014 to the
2014-2015 school years in the
percentage of students scoring
Proficient/Distinguished: English II,
Algebra II, Biology, and US History
Algebra II has the lowest number of
students scoring at the
proficient/distinguished levels, with only
17.2% P/D during the 2014-2015 year.
Percentage of Students Meeting Benchmarks on PLAN, Grade 10, at the School and in the State (20122013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015)
Content
Area
Percentage
School
(12-13)
Percentage
State
(12-13)
Percentage
School
(13-14)
Percentage
State
(13-14)
Percentage
School
(14-15)
Percentage
State
(14-15)
English
57.1
67.8
55.9
66.2
49.1
62.3
Math
18.4
25.8
17.8
25.6
17.5
27.9
Reading
34.4
43.2
39.6
48.0
32.3
43.7
Science
16.2
21.2
12.5
19.5
12.7
21.9
PLUS
The percentage of students meeting

benchmark in Science increased from
12.5 in 2013-2014 to 12.7 in 2014-2015.
DELTA

benchmarks on PLAN in English, Math,
Reading and Science are below state
averages for three consecutive years.
Science has the lowest number of
students meeting benchmark on PLAN
with only 12.7% during the 2014-2015
year.
Percentages of Students Meeting Benchmarks on ACT, Grade 11, at the School and in the State
(2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015)
Content
Area
Percentage
School
(12-13)
Percentage
State
(12-13)
Percentage
School
(13-14)
English
41.8
53.1
42.1
55.9
36.4
55.3
Math
30.9
39.6
34.7
43.5
25.1
38.1
Reading
35.9
44.2
38
47.1
34.2
47.4
PLUS
Percentage
State
(13-14)
Percentage
School
(14-15)
Percentage
State
(14-15)
DELTA
benchmark in Science increased from
12.5 in 2013-2014 to 12.7 in 2014-2015

benchmarks on ACT in English, Math,
Reading and Science are below state
averages for three consecutive years.
benchmark on ACT in English, Math,
Reading and Science declined from the
2013-2014 to 2014-2015 year.
Math has the lowest number of students
meeting benchmark on ACT with only
25.1% during the 2014-2015 year.
School Achievement of Proficiency and Gap Delivery Targets (2014-2015)

Tested Area
Proficiency
Delivery Target
for % P/D
Actual Score
Met Target
(Yes or No)
Gap
Delivery
Target for %
P/D
Actual
Score
Met
Target
(Yes or
No)
Combined
Reading &
Math
45.5
31.6
No
39.4
26.2
No
Reading
53
45.9
No
46.7
38
No
Math
37.8
17.2
No
32.1
14.4
No
Science
30.5
22.9
No
24.5
17.3
No
Social Studies
47.7
45.6
No
40.2
39.5
No
Writing
47.4
38.1
No
PLUS
40.9
32.3
No
DELTA
Reading scores were higher than other

content areas
No delivery targets were met in each of

the assessed content areas
No gap delivery targets were met in each
of the assessed content areas
Math was the lowest score among the
proficiency delivery targets
Science was the lowest score among the
gap delivery target
School Achievement of College and Career Readiness (CCR) and Graduation Rate Delivery Targets
(2014-2015)
Delivery Target Type
Delivery Target
(School)
Actual Score
(School)
62
Graduation Rate (for

4-year adjusted
cohort)
Graduation Rate (for
5-year adjusted
cohort)
College and Career

Readiness
Met Target
(Yes or No)
53.5
Actual Score
(State)
66.8
86.3
83.7
87.9
No
87.2
85.4
88.9
No
PLUS
No
DELTA
Targets were not met in college and

career readiness, graduation rate for 4
year adjusted cohort or graduation rate
for 5 year adjusted cohort.
The actual scores in college and career
readiness and graduation rate were
significantly below the state average.
Program Reviews 2014-2015

Program Area
Curriculum
and
Instruction
(3 pts
possible)
Formative &
Summative
Assessment
(3 pts
possible)
Professional
Development
(3 pts
possible)
Administrative/
Leadership
Support
(3 pts possible)
Total
Score
(12 points
possible)
Classification
Arts and
Humanities
2.29
2.29
2.33
8.9
Proficient
Practical
Living
2.20
2.17
2.78
2.58
9.7
Proficient
Writing
1.83
1.75
1.89
2.0
7.5
Needs
Improvement
World
Language and
Global
Competency*
1.21
0.82
1.67
1.38
5.1
Needs
Improvement
The 2014-15 World Language Program Reviews scores for High Schools will be included with other program reviews to generate the
comparable 2014-15 program review baseline score needed for 2015-16 accountability reporting.
PLUS
The school scored in the proficient

category in the areas of arts/humanities
and practical living.
The highest score was in the area of
practical living with 9.7 out of 12 possible
points.
The highest standard is professional
development in the area of practical
living with a score of 2.78 out of 3
possible points.
DELTA
The school scored in needs improvement

in the areas of writing and World
Language and Global Competency
The lowest score was in the area of
World Language and Global Competency
with a score of 5.1 out of 12 possible
points.
Kentucky Stakeholder Survey Results Analysis

Indicator
Parent Survey
Survey Item
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
Student Survey
ms/hs
Survey
Item
%agree/ strongly agree
Staff Survey

Survey Item
10
11
13
34
21
57.67
58.6
32.24
56.67
53.27
10
11
17
32
17
55.57
48.71
26
51
48.44
58.59
12
13
22
48.6
32.24
69.16
10
16
17
26
55.57
52.41
39.6
16
22
17
18
19
50
49.21
44.53
45.31
46.87
3.4
66.2
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.10
3.10
3.10
3.11
3.11
3.12
3.12
11
12
13
8
24
25
20
21
22
8
30
31
15
34
35
70.37
66.67
53.33
67.41
67.97
41.41
57.81
43.75
49.21
67.41
59.37
69.53
62.23
39.84
56.25
Plus:
14
34.58
49.06
19
21
73.02
53.27
14
34.58
9
18
20
5
59.35
58.37
57.99
49.06
9
15
16
17
35
20
59.82
42.79
39.53
53.48
48.57
64.65
13
21
48.12
46.89
14
47.7
28
46.88
22
55.62
1
17
64.78
39.6
9
21
23
32
33
27
29
80
43.75
46.87
70.32
59.37
60.94
48.44
13
23
32.24
55.35
80 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our schools leaders expect
staff members to hold all students to high academic standards, demonstrating agreement.
Delta:
32.24 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, All of my childs teachers
meet his/her learning needs by individualizing instruction, demonstrating absence of
agreement.
work as a team to help my child learn, demonstrating absence of agreement.
keep me informed regularly of how my child is being graded, demonstrating absence of
agreement.
39.6 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, All of my teachers change
their teaching to meet my learning needs, demonstrating absence of agreement.
46.89 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, All of my teachers keep
my family informed of my academic progress, demonstrating absence of agreement.
47.7 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, My school makes sure
there is at least one adult who knows me well and shows interest in my education and future,
demonstrating absence of agreement.
44.53 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, All teachers in our school
personalize instructional strategies and interventions to address individual learning needs of
students, demonstrating absence of agreement.
41.41 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, All teachers in our school
have been trained in a formal process that promotes discussion about student learning (e.g.,
action research, examination of student work, reflection, study teams, and peer coaching),
39.84 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, In our school, all school
personnel regularly engage families in their childrens learning progress, demonstrating
absence of agreement.
Leadership Capacity
Indicator
Parent Survey
Survey
Item
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.6
Plus:
Student Survey
%agree/
strongly
agree
ms/hs
Survey
Item
%agree/
strongly
agree
1
2
69.06
46.19
61.70
6
10
11
52.77
57.67
58.60
3
8
10
52.33
60.69
55.57
3
8
33
62.26
60.00
44.76
5
17
49.06
39.60
4
5
6
7
47.23
41.45
52.77
47.43
9
15
16
17
35
59.82
42.79
39.53
43.48
48.67
Elem. (3-5)
Survey
Item
1
2
5
%agree/
strongly
agree
NA
NA
NA
8
10
60,69
55.57
1
4
NA
NA
13
21
30
31
48.12
46.89
45.32
40.76
10
18
NA
NA
Staff Survey
Early elem.
(K-2) Survey
Item
%agree/
strongly
agree
NA
NA
Survey
Item
%agree/
strongly
agree
1
2
85.52
53.1
3
4
9
26
5
49
53
66.20
64.83
80.00
48.44
68.00
52.34
69.53
6
7
5
8
9
10
11
14
15
34
35
71.87
61.49
70.34
67.41
80.00
57.04
70.37
54.07
62.23
39.84
56.25
80 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our schools leaders expect
staff members to hold all students to high academic standards, demonstrating agreement.
85.52 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our schools purpose
statement is clearly focused on student success, demonstrating agreement.
Delta:
46.19 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our schools purpose
statement is formally reviewed and revised with involvement from parent, demonstrating
44.76 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our school ensures that
all staff members monitor and report the achievement of school goals, demonstrating absence
of agreement.
47.23 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our schools governing
body operates responsibly and functions effectively, demonstrating absence of agreement.
41.45 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our schools governing
body does not interfere with the operation or leadership of our school, demonstrating absence
of agreement.
47.43 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our school shares
responsibility for student learning with its stakeholders, demonstrating absence of agreement.
help me to understand my childs progress, demonstrating absence of agreement.
keep me informed regularly of how my child is being graded, demonstrating absence of
agreement.
report on my childs progress in easy to understand language, demonstrating absence of
agreement.
48.67 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, My child has
administrators and teachers that monitor and inform me of his/her learning progress,
39.60 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our school
communicates effectively about the schools goals and activities, demonstrating absence of
agreement.
48.12 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, My school offers
opportunities for my family to become involved in school activities and my learning,
46.89 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, All of my teachers fairly
grade and evaluate my work, demonstrating absence of agreement.
45.32 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, My school shares
information about school success with my family and community members, demonstrating
40.76 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, My school considers
students opinions when planning ways to improve our school, demonstrating absence of
agreement.
48.44 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, In our school, challenging
curriculum and learning experiences provide equity for all students in the development of
learning, thinking, and life skills, demonstrating absence of agreement.
39.84 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, In our school, all school
personnel regularly engage families in their childrens learning progress, demonstrating
Indicator
Parent Survey
Survey
Item
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.7
Plus:
%agree/
strongly
agree
24
25
27
31
32
26
30
27
57.82
54.50
59.44
36.79
49.06
47.65
63.68
59.44
29
75.47
28
50.48
Student Survey
ms/hs
Survey
Item
%agree/
strongly
agree
Elem. (3-5)
Survey
Item
%agree/
strongly
agree
Staff Survey
Early elem.
(K-2) Survey
Item
%agree/
strongly
agree
25
26
55.05
51.73
23
39.82
14
NA
10
NA
25
55.05
15
NA
11
NA
26
1
28
1
29
51.73
64.78
60.78
64.68
57.85
16
NA
12
NA
%agree/
strongly
agree
Survey
Item
36
37
38
39
40
45
46
36
40
41
44
67.19
52.34
43.75
60.16
58.59
80.25
62.50
67.19
58.59
50.78
75.00
43
69.53
80.25 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our school maintains
facilities that support student learning, demonstrating agreement.
Delta:
36.79 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our school ensures the
effective use of resources, demonstrating absence of agreement.
46.06 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our school ensures that
instructional time is protected and interruptions are minimized, demonstrating absence of
agreement.
47.65 percent of parents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our school provides a
safe learning environment, demonstrating absence of agreement.
39.82 percent of students agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, In my school, the
building and grounds are safe, clean, and provide a healthy place for learning, demonstrating
43.75 percent of staff agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, Our school provides
sufficient material resources to meet student needs, demonstrating absence of agreement.
Diagnostic Review Schedule

Fayette County Public Schools
701 East Main Street
Lexington, KY 40502
Time
SUNDAY: March 13, 2016

Event
Where
Who
3:00 p.m.
Check-in
Hotel
4:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.
Orientation and Planning Session
Hotel Conference
Room
5:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Dinner
5:30 pm - 6:30 pm
Superintendents Presentation
(Topics to be addressed)
Executive Summary Overview
1. What is the systems purpose and direction for
improving student performance?
Hotel Conference
Room

Members
Members
Members
Members
Hotel Conference
Room

Members
2. What additional information does the team need to

know about the school systems cultural, economic,
historical context?
Standards Overview
1. What are the AdvancED Self Assessment ratings, how
were they determined and who was involved in this
determination?
2. What strengths and leverage points for improvement
emerged from the systems ratings of the indicators?
Previous Leadership Assessment/Diagnostic Review
Findings
1. Specifically address the Improvement Priorities
identified in the previous Leadership
Assessment/Diagnostic Review Report. What evidence
exists to indicate that the system has addressed these
Improvement Priorities?
2. What has the system done to evaluate, support, and
monitor improvement in student performance and the
conditions that support learning at the Priority school in
the last two years?
3. What has been the result of school/system efforts at
the school? What evidence can the school district
present to indicate that learning conditions and student
achievement have improved?
6:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
Dinner and Team Work Session #1
Reviewing Internal Review documents and

determining preliminary ratings for all
indicators.
Determining questions and points of inquiry for
the team.
Reviewing team schedules and assignments for
Monday
MONDAY: March 14, 2016

Time
Event
Where
Who
Breakfast
Hotel
Diagnostic Review Team Members
7:30 a.m.
Some or all of the Diagnostic Review Team may report to
TM
the Priority school to conduct eleot observations and
interview school leadership as well as KDE Educational
Recovery Staff.
7:30 a.m.
7:45 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.
Team arrives at system office

Individual private interviews are scheduled in advance
with:
1. Superintendent
2. Key members of the superintendents leadership
team, i.e., assistant superintendents, deputy
superintendents, directors, division heads, etc.
3. Cross section of professional staff from all divisions
including curriculum and instruction, human resources,
finance, business, maintenance and operations, school
safety, technology, transportation, special education, etc.
4. Cross section of support personnel
District office
District office
conference room

9:30 a.m. - 9:45 a.m.

9:45 a.m. - 10:45 a.m.
Break
Some team members may be assigned to review artifacts
and documents that were not provided to the team in
advance.
District office
10:45 a.m. - 11:45 a.m.
Individual interviews with system office staff continues
District office
11:45 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
Lunch & Team Debriefing
TBD

(divided)
12:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Interviews continue with:
District office

(divided)
1. All school board members (individual private

interviews)
2. Community members ( small group(s) of 4-8
interviewees
4:30 p.m.
Team returns to hotel
5:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.

6:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
Dinner
Evening Work Session #2
Agenda to be determined by Lead and Associate Lead
Evaluators
Prepare for Day 2
Allow time for the school and district teams to share
information from Day 1.
TBD
Hotel conference
room

Possibly allow school and district standards teams

to share information with each other and discuss
preliminary indicator ratings as well as Powerful
Practices, Improvement Priorities
If possible, allow time to review preliminary
eleot data
TUESDAY: March 15, 2016

Time
Event
Where
Who
8:00 a.m.
8:00 a.m. - 11:45 a.m.
11:45 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
Breakfast
Team arrives at system office
Continue district office staff interviews
Lunch & team debriefing
Hotel
District office
District office
TBD

12:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Continue review of artifacts and documentation
District office
4:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Consider scheduling a meeting with the Lead Evaluators

of the school diagnostic review team for the purpose of
discussing preliminary findings including Improvement
Priorities, indicator and standard ratings, etc.
5:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.

6:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m.
Dinner
Evening Work Session #3
Agenda to be determined by the Lead and Associate Lead
Evaluator
Prepare for Day 3
TBD
Hotel Conference
Room

WEDNESDAY: March 16, 2016

Time
Event
Where
Who
7:30 a.m.
Check out of hotel and departure for system office
Hotel

Members
8:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.
Team Work Session
Complete any remaining interviews
Complete the examination of any

documents/artifacts not reviewed previously
Team members are asked to examine all

Improvement Priorities and Powerful Practices for
accuracy and completeness.
Review final ratings for standards and indicators

and enter indicator ratings into ASSIST
Review and revise/edit supporting rationale for

Ensure all eleot ratings for all team members have
District office
conference room

Members
been entered into ASSIST

Review and revise eleot overview narrative
Review and revise report conclusion
Complete Survey Plus/Delta
Complete Leadership Assessment Addendum
TBD
Kentucky Department of Education Leadership Meeting
TBD
11:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Working Lunch
District office
conference room

Members and KDE
Representative
Members
District office
conference room

Members
TBD
Review and revise standards workbook

Submit workbooks to Lead Evaluator
Exit Report with the superintendent

The Exit Report will be a brief meeting for the Lead and
Associate Lead Evaluators to express their appreciation
for hosting the on-site review to the superintendent. All
substantive information regarding the Diagnostic Review
will be delivered to the superintendent and system
leaders in a separate meeting to be scheduled later by
KDE.
The Exit Report will not be a time to discuss the
teams findings, ratings, individual impressions of
the school, make evaluative statements or share
any information from the Diagnostic Review Team
report.
2015-16 LEADERSHIP ASSESSMENT/DIAGNOSTIC REVIEW ADDENDUM

The purpose of this addendum is to provide feedback on progress made in addressing
identified Improvement Priorities from the 2014-2015 Diagnostic Review or Progress
Monitoring Visit for Fayette County Public Schools.
Improvement Priority 1
Indicator 3.2
2014-15
Team Rating
2015-16
School/District
Self- Rating
2015-16
Team Rating
1.27
2.00
1.33
Curriculum, instruction, and assessment throughout

the system are monitored and adjusted systematically
in response to data from multiple assessments of
student learning and an examination of professional
practice.
3.2 Improvement Priority (2014-15)
School SelfRating
Team Rating
Develop and implement an ongoing district wide process to

ensure that curriculum, instruction, and assessment are
monitored and adjusted systematically based on student
performance data.
This Improvement Priority has been addressed in an exemplary manner.
This Improvement Priority has been addressed satisfactorily.
This Improvement Priority has been partially addressed.
There is little or no evidence that this Improvement Priority has been
addressed.
School Evidence:
Novice Reduction (Big Rock 1: Standards, Curriculum and Instruction) Plans, color coded for
work completed, continuing, added tasks.
Surveys were completed K-8 of prior documents; results used to complete revisions of
maps, pacing guides, units and to develop common assessments.
Narrative contains a description of the systematic process, including appointment of a team
of master teachers to assist district personnel in these tasks.
District grading policies along with several examples of standards based grading adopted at
the school level.
Program Review Results and Process, new procedures used as an example at KDE
PLN
PLC in feeder patterns for vertical alignment conversations
PGES Coaches in every school, agendas and meeting schedules with district staff
Student data from FAST and CERT incremental district assessments
School Supporting Rationale:
The Fayette County district team assigned this priority a 2. While we have accomplished many
of the tasks in our Novice Reduction Plans, we still need to provide exemplar work for use in
the classroom, operationalize our monitoring procedures of all curriculum documents, and
complete and implement our district assessment system to include monitoring of the Common
Assessments. The next step is the rollout of the revised documents and new tools followed by
assessment literacy training to ensure continuous progress in student achievement.
Team Evidence:
Curriculum Maps
Curriculum Pacing Guides
Common assessments
Surveys of curriculum maps/guides
30-60-90 day plans
Stakeholder interviews
Team Supporting Rationale:
Review of artifacts and evidence indicated that the district has begun work on this Indicator.
While the district has created some curriculum maps, pacing guides and assessments, there
was no process in place to ensure curriculum alignment, instruction, and/or assessments were
reviewed or revised. Not all stakeholders were involved in the process of the creation of these
documents and there was not a process in place to ensure that the alignment of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment practices was truly regular and systematic. Based on stakeholder
interviews there was no schedule for administering common assessments and no process in
place to monitor if teachers were following the pacing guides.
Indicator 3.4
2014-15
Team Rating
2015-16
School/District
Self- Rating
2015-16
Team Rating
1.09
1.00
System and school leaders monitor and support the

improvement of instructional practices of teachers to
ensure student success.

Implement a system for school and district leaders to formally
and consistently monitor instructional practices (e.g., through
the regular collection of walkthrough data, review of
unit/lesson plans, examination of standardized and local
assessment data, review of student work) and ensure that
teachers are provided with immediate feedback and support to
meet the needs of all students.
addressed.
School SelfRating
Team Rating
School Evidence:
Surveys were completed K-8 of prior documents; results used to complete revisions of
maps, pacing guides, units and to develop common assessments.
eleot was purchased for every Partnership Zone and Point of Contact School. District
schedule for walkthroughs implemented.
PGES Coaches in every school meet regularly with district staff.
CSIP Help Sessions with feedback
Heat Map used to Tier support services; Tier 3: Partnership Zone, Tier 2 Point of Contact;
service team or point of contact meets with the school leadership team to analyze data,
problem solve. PZ service teams observe and provide feedback to classroom teachers.
Certified Evaluation, TPGES, PPGES
MTSS and PBIS implemented in schools, teams from district for support
Program Review Plan and feedback
Director of Curriculum hired in February to further work
Professional Learning in strategies (e.g. LDC, MDC, technology, special education)
Program Review professional learning and feedback
Data analysis of KPREP, training on and analysis of FAST data (incremental assessment)

The Fayette County district team assigned this priority a 2. While much progress has been made
on the implementation of our Novice Reduction Plans and tasks to better support the
improvement of instructional practices, creating efficient and effective monitoring systems for
instruction and implementing those protocols with fidelity is still not complete.
Team Evidence:
Stakeholder interviews
K-8 Pacing Guides
Curriculum Maps
eleot Walkthrough Calendar
eleot Purchase Invoice
Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (PGES) Timeline
Certified Evaluation Plan
Common Assessments
Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP) Timeline
Meeting Agenda & Minutes
AdvancED Stakeholder Surveys
eleot Observations
The review of artifacts and evidence indicated that the district has initiated the process of
implementing a system to monitor instructional practices. The district has purchased, trained
staff and scheduled eleot walkthroughs. Due to the late implementation of eleot
walkthroughs, starting Feb. 2016, there was insufficient evidence to strongly suggest that data
was used/analyzed regularly to monitor and support improvement in instructional
practice. There was insufficient evidence that teachers received feedback that would enhance
instruction. Curriculum maps and pacing guides have been developed for K-8 grades in math,
science and ELA content areas; Algebra I and Algebra II courses; however, documentation of
monitoring teacher implementation or revisions did not exist.
2014-15
Team Rating
2015-16
School/District
Self- Rating
2015-16
Team Rating
The system establishes and maintains a clearly defined

and comprehensive student assessment system.
1.18
1.10
Professional and support staff continuously collect,

analyze and apply learning from a range of data
sources, including comparison and trend data about
student learning, instruction, program evaluation, and
organizational conditions that support learning.
1.36
1.10
Throughout the system professional and support staff

are trained in the interpretation and use of data.
1.55
1.20
Indicator 5.1/5.2/5.3
5.1/5.2/5.3 Improvement Priority (2014-15)
School SelfRating
Team Rating
Further develop, monitor and continuously evaluate the

effectiveness of a clearly defined comprehensive student
assessment system that generates data and information to
guide improvement initiatives focused on student learning and
organizational effectiveness. Provide professional development
to all staff in the interpretation and use of data and monitor the
implementation of this process.
addressed.
X
X
School Evidence:
Novice Reduction Plan (Big Rock 2: Continuous Improvement)
District Assessment team convened in late November 2015. Broad base of membership:
Teachers and principals from all levels, district staff with background in assessment of and
for learning, Building Assessment Coordinators, University Professor. Charge: to
recommend and monitor a balanced district assessment plan. Progress: Completed
inventory of all assessments at all levels, analyzing for needs not met, recommendations for
change to fulfill a balanced assessment system for the district to be made by Spring Break.
Currently using state data, FAST and CERT as incremental measures for district wide
monitoring, Student Growth Goals, Unit Assessments at the school level and other CBM and
monitoring tools for reading and math specific to the schools.
Team Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS), a research based systematic problem solving
protocol, has been implemented in the district. All district staff assigned to a Partnership
Zone or Point of Contact school have been trained in this and have trained their schools as
the leadership teams use this to analyze data and solve instructional issues at the school
level.
Data Walls and Name Them Claim Them type strategies are being used in the schools
TELL survey data, KPREP and EOC/ACT results and other data are used to update a Heat
Map used to tier our support services to schools.
A systematic process for creating, revising and implementing the CSIP plans has been
implemented. A targeted Help Session was provided to schools, a review of all CSIP plans
and feedback was provided to the schools. Several schools were asked to revise their plans
before submitting them to KDE.
Through our Novice Reduction process, principals were trained in analyzing their as-is
state using the Key Core Work Processes. Data were used as well as a Needs Assessment to
drive the Big Rock work.
MTSS and PBIS have been implemented, coaches are available for school support, all
schools have completed a facilitated PBIS self-assessment.
The Fayette County district team assigned these priorities a 2. While much progress has been
made on implementing our Novice Reduction Big Rock 2 plan, the district assessment team
must finish their work in developing a balanced assessment system. Components must be
implemented with fidelity across the district and a monitoring process created in order to
continue making progress each year.
Big Rock 1 and Big Rock 2 staff are working in collaboration to plan the assessment literacy
training for district and school level staff in order to better use the data we have to increase
student achievement. This is being timed to roll out after the new curriculum documents are
introduced to schools.
A Director of Data, Evaluation and Assessment is being hired to be on board for 2016-17 school
year.
Currently, schools must create reports from Infinite Campus and or FAST/CERT in order to fully
analyze their data. A more efficient system is needed for district and school level staff to be
able to pull a data profile up from a data warehouse or system to give us an immediate picture
of a school or student.
Team Evidence:
Stakeholder Interviews
Observations
College Equipped Readiness Tool (CERT)
Formative Assessment System for Teachers (FAST)
Common Assessments
Assessment Calendar
30/60/90 day plans
Meeting Minutes (Team Initiated Problem Solving)
Assessment Committee Minutes
Review of artifacts, evidence and interviews indicated that the district was in the beginning
stages of creating a comprehensive assessment plan. There was little evidence to show that any
type of systemic data analysis had taken place at this point that would lead to enhanced
classroom instruction. Interviews and observations revealed the common assessments have
not been implemented at this point, therefore, there was no data to review. The district has
begun utilizing a Team Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS) protocol for teams to analyze data and
create next steps for improvement in student achievement with the Partnership Zone and
Multi-Tiered Systems of Support.
Indicator 1.2
2014-15
Team Rating
2015-16
School/District
Self- Rating
2015-16
Team Rating
1.36
1.10
The system ensures that each school engages in a

systematic, inclusive, and comprehensive process to
review, revise, and communicate a school purpose for
student success.
School SelfRating
Create and implement guiding documents (e.g., policies,

procedures, plans, protocols) that clearly establish expectations
for individual schools to systematically engage in a process to
review, revise and communicate a school purpose and direction
for improvement in student achievement that commit to high
expectations for learning. Ensure that these processes include
clear timelines for implementation and are inclusive of all
stakeholder groups.
Team Rating

addressed.
School Evidence:
The new superintendent was hired this summer and began work in August 2015. His Entry Plan
is the beginning of a strategic planning process that will include a review of the mission, vision
and plans to increase school and district effectiveness. As part of the data collection process,
five contracts were awarded to provide diagnostics (audits) of specific learning programs and
the district functions as a whole. The diagnostics are being completed at this time are special
education, English Language Learners, Gifted and Talented Education, Career and Technical
Education and the district function and effectiveness. Also, the superintendent is conducting
listening sessions at local schools to include employees, families and community members in
informal round table discussions to talk with him about issues of importance to them.
Until then, our mission statement from 2013 and a strategic plan 2013-2017 are still in place.
(Processes for their development are in the evidence.)
The Board of Education created a set of beliefs/agreement with the superintendent in October
2015 that was signed by all Board members as they agreed to place the interests of students
above all others in every decision that they make, maintain an unwavering focus on the
achievement of all students regardless of race, class, ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status,
special need or English language proficiency, and monitor progress on the indicators of success
in our strategic plan. There are seven additional statements in the document. This public
commitment to communicate the purpose for student success was broadcast, placed on the
website and is revisited regularly.
A Theory of Action, Belief Statements and the Vision Statements were created this summer/fall
and are currently guiding our work.
Other evidence:
New CDIP/CSIP process with greater feedback and review opportunities for the district and
schools to include stakeholders
Team Initiated Problem Solving protocols (TIPS)
Stakeholder involvement in advisory groups, rezoning/redistricting efforts/the
superintendent search. In these inclusive processes the values and beliefs about student
achievement are reflected.
The Equity Council and the Equity Scorecard
SBDM Council reports to Board and the Equity Council on student achievement and closing
the achievement gap goals
District PTA round table
SBDM Super Council
Survey Results from district surveys, Parent Surveys, Organizational Health Surveys and TELL
are included.
The Fayette County district team assigned this priority a 2. Our greatest strengths in this area
are the vast opportunities for stakeholder input to the communication of accomplishing greater
student success. The rezoning process was led by a business leader in our community.
Opportunities for increasing student achievement by lessening overcrowding and building new
schools was widely communicated. Citizens had many opportunities for input and discussion.
The superintendent search began with surveys of students, parents, employees and community
members to determine the shared values and criterion our city wanted in a superintendent.
Another major strength is the leadership our Board of Education has shown in creating their
Standards of Practice which focuses on student success.
Because we are in the midst of data collection, superintendent listening sessions at the
beginning of a strategic planning process, believe this improvement priority to be partially
implemented.
Team Evidence:
Observations
Agendas/Minutes
Power Point Presentations
Other internal documents
Reflection on interviews, as well as the submitted artifacts and evidence indicated little
evidence of addressing of this priority. There was a process for community engagement, and
external audits to inform the Superintendents Entry Plan, however at this time there was little
to no evidence of clear direction and procedures to engage all schools in communicating their
purpose as it relates to student success among all stakeholders. The school board is now
collaborating in many ways, however there was little evidence that the document Standards
of Practice was being internalized in the operation and beliefs of all members as they engaged
the community in the purpose of Fayette County Public Schools (e.g., place the interests of
students above all others in every decision; maintain an unwavering focus on the achievement
of all students regardless of race, class, ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, special need
or English language proficiency; maintain a strategic plan for the district.)
Indicator 2.2
2014-15
Team Rating
2015-16
School/District
Self- Rating
2015-16
Team Rating
1.73
2.00
The governing body operates responsibly and functions

effectively.
School SelfRating
Team Rating
Institute a process that ensures governing board members

function within their defined roles and responsibilities and
adhere to the code of ethics and an agreed upon code of
behavior.
addressed.
School Evidence:
Board of Education Standards of Practice, a set of beliefs/agreement with the
superintendent in October 2015 that was signed by all Board members as they agreed to
place the interests of students above all others in every decision that they make, maintain
an unwavering focus on the achievement of all students regardless of race, class, ethnicity,
gender, socio-economic status, special need or English language proficiency, and monitor
progress on the indicators of success in our strategic plan.
Code of Ethics, Employee Code of Conduct
Training for the BOE with KSBA and continuing educational opportunities certificates
available)
Lunch and Learns for the BOE with district staff for Special Education, Finance, CDIP goals
and strategies and other topics
A staff attorney and external staff attorney have been hired.
District Assurances in the CDIP, for safety, Equitable Access, Funding
BOE Webpage
Internal Auditor Reports
Regular fiscal reports to the BOE
BOE policies and Administrative Procedures on a regular review process with support from
KSBA
SBDM Governance and policies

The Fayette County district team assigned this priority a 2.
The Board of Education and district leadership have worked very hard this year to operate
responsibly and function effectively. Many processes and procedures, especially in the budget
and financial areas have been revised. The added position of a Senior Director to oversee all
Administrative Functions was originally filled with a former KDE associate commissioner of
finance and is now filled permanently with a former KDE associate commissioner of
administrative services and finance. The expertise provided in developing protocols and
timelines for these important areas of governance have aided improvement.
As the BOE Standards of Practice become totally systematic and operational, this indicator will
quickly become a 3.
Team Evidence:
Observations
Agendas/Minutes
Power Point Presentations
Other internal documents
Reflection on interviews, as well as the submitted artifacts and evidence indicated Fayette
County Schools, and its Board has satisfactorily met this priority. The recent demonstration of a
sense of common purpose of the school board based on supporting the district audits, selecting
a Chair and Vice Chair, and passage of a district budget was evidence of effective functioning
and responsible operations. The school board intentionally included all stakeholders in a
national search for the position of superintendent. Collaborative relationships were being
established with the newly selected superintendent, such as through the "Lunch and Learns"
and community listening sessions.
2014-15
Team Rating
2015-16
School/District
Self- Rating
2015-16
Team Rating
Leadership and staff supervision and evaluation

processes result in improved professional practice in all
areas of the system and improved student success.
1.45
1.33
Teachers throughout the district engage students in

their learning through instructional strategies that
ensure achievement of learning expectations.
1.64
1.11
Teachers implement the system's instructional process

in support of student learning.
1.45
1.10
Indicator 2.6/3.3/3.6
2.6/3.3/3.6 Improvement Priority (2014-15)
School SelfRating
Team Rating
Develop and implement a district wide instructional process

that ensures students 1) are clearly informed of learning
expectations and standards of performance, 2) are provided
exemplars of high quality work and 3) are assessed formatively
(e.g., elicits data for teachers and students to make
differentiated instructional and learning tactic adjustments) in
order to fully engage students as stakeholders in their learning,
4) are provided specific and timely feedback about their
learning. Ensure the process is monitored for effectiveness
during regular and systematic classroom observations that are
conducted formally or informally.
addressed.
X
X
School Evidence:
Curriculum Maps, pacing guides, Expectations within Units, Unit Assessments
TPGES and Student Growth examples, Certified Evaluation system, Professional Growth
Plans
LDC, MDC, training and ongoing meeting (agendas)
State Testing data and ACT Quality Core supports
TELL Survey
Eleot walkthrough for PZ and Point of Contact Schools
PD offerings and plans tied to results from supervision and evaluation at the school level
Partnership Zone Schools provided a service team to mentor leadership team, provide
classroom observations and feedback, Point of Contact to mentor school leadership teams
and broker services
Technology in classrooms (robotics and other)
PGE Coaches in every school (district leadership to coach)
Val Ed data on principals monitored by the school director and to be shared aggregately
with district leadership team.
The Fayette County district team assigned these priorities a 2.
Most of the work for these indicators came under Big Rock 1 of our Novice Reduction Planning.
While many tasks have been completed, a plan for communicating the revised curriculum and
new tools is in development and scheduled to be implemented this Spring. The documents will
be in effect for 2016-17. The newly appointed Director of Curriculum will be working with the
District Instructional staff to train schools in the use of these documents and assessments.
As the Common Assessments are implemented next school year, exemplars will be collected
and disseminated as we continue to review and revise our curriculum processes. A monitoring
system for ensuring effectiveness of the instructional plan and providing timely feedback to
school level staff needs to be developed and implemented.
Team Evidence:
Curriculum Maps
Pacing guides
Common assessments
Common assignments
Observations
District Curriculum Surveys
Classroom observations did not reveal the existence of practices or procedures that clearly
informed students of learning expectations. Student performance data revealed a decrease in
performance from 2014 and 2015 that was significantly below the state average. Data
suggested that the district had not been effective in developing a district wide instructional
process that ensured students were clearly informed of the learning expectations and that
teachers used formative assessment data to modify and adapt instruction, curriculum and
assessment to address student needs. In interviews, administrators were consistently unable
to define or explain the schools instructional process. Reviews of curriculum maps, pacing
guides, common assessments, common assignments, professional development plans, as well
as survey results did not reveal the existence of defined written expectations, monitoring or
support for the implementation of a district instructional process intended to clearly inform
students of learning expectations or ensure the effective use of formative assessments to guide
and modify instruction.
District Diagnostic Review Summary Report
Fayette County
School District
3/13/2016 3/16/2016
The members of the Fayette County District Diagnostic Review Team are grateful to the district
leadership, staff, students, families and community for the cooperation and hospitality extended to us
during the assessment process.
Pursuant to KRS 160.346, the Diagnostic Review Team has examined extensive evidence and arrived at
the following recommendations:
District Authority:
The District has shown since the last diagnostic review that it does not have the capacity to
implement the identified improvement priorities. Very little to no action was taken by the district to
address the improvement priorities in the previous diagnostic review. The Review Teams findings
indicate a vast disconnect between district office and schools in terms of the level of support
required to ensure that all students needs are being met.
Though the districts priority school, Bryan Station High School, has exited priority status, there are
significant concerns regarding the districts ability to support all schools in the district so as to ensure
that additional schools do not fall into priority status and to lead intentional district-wide efforts to
close the achievement gap.
I have reviewed the recommendations of the Diagnostic Review Team and adopt them as my
determination pursuant to KRS 160.346.
Commissioner, Kentucky Department of Education
________________________________________________Date:________________
I have received the diagnostic review report for Fayette County School District and Bryan Station High
School.
Superintendent, Fayette County
________________________________________________Date:________________

2016 FayetteCountyDiagnosticReviewReportFinal

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

2016 FayetteCountyDiagnosticReviewReportFinal

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Report of the

Diagnostic Review Team

Date: March 13, 2016 - March 16, 2016

Document Generated On April 7, 2016

Kentucky Department of Education

Kentucky Department of Education

Kentucky Department of Education

Use of Diagnostic Tools

Kentucky Department of Education

Kentucky Department of Education

Kentucky Department of Education

Kentucky Department of Education

Kentucky Department of Education

Standard 3 - Teaching and Assessing for Learning

The system's curriculum provides equitable and challenging learning

Curriculum, instruction, and assessment throughout the system are monitored

Teachers throughout the district engage students in their learning through

The system operates as a collaborative learning organization through structures

Teachers implement the system's instructional process in support of student

Mentoring, coaching, and induction programs support instructional improvement

Kentucky Department of Education

All staff members participate in a continuous program of professional learning.

Standard 5 - Using Results for Continuous Improvement

The system establishes and maintains a clearly defined and comprehensive

The school system engages in a continuous process to determine verifiable

System and school leaders monitor and communicate comprehensive

Kentucky Department of Education

Effective Learning Environments Observation Tool (eleot)

Kentucky Department of Education

Kentucky Department of Education

Kentucky Department of Education

eleot Data Summary

Has differentiated learning opportunities

Has equal access to classroom

Knows that rules and consequences are

Has ongoing opportunities to learn

Overall rating on a 4 point scale: 1.76

Knows and strives to meet the high

Is tasked with activities and learning that

Is provided exemplars of high quality

Is engaged in rigorous coursework,

Is asked and responds to questions that

Overall rating on a 4 point scale: 1.75

Kentucky Department of Education

Demonstrates or expresses that

Demonstrates positive attitude about the

Takes risks in learning (without fear of

Is provided support and assistance to

Overall rating on a 4 point scale: 1.90

Has several opportunities to engage in

Makes connections from content to reallife experiences

Is actively engaged in the learning

Overall rating on a 4 point scale: 1.75

Kentucky Department of Education

E. Progress Monitoring and Feedback

Is asked and/or quizzed about individual

Responds to teacher feedback to

Understands how her/his work is

Has opportunities to revise/improve

Overall rating on a 4 point scale: 1.64

Speaks and interacts respectfully with

Follows classroom rules and works well

Transitions smoothly and efficiently to